|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 1484 Records
-
2025 (3) TMI 1224
Deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) - interest income earned out of the Fixed deposits/Investments made with Cooperative Banks treating the same as Income from Other Source - HELD THAT:- Section 80P(2)(d) provides that the sum received in respect of any income by way of interest or dividend derived by Cooperative Society from its investment with any other Cooperative Society, the whole of such income is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act.
We find that this issue is no more res integra as the Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal has been consistently holding that the interest income earned out of the FDs/Investments kept with Cooperative Banks is allowable u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act.
We find that this Tribunal in case of Kolhapur District Central Co-op. Bank Kanista Sevakanchi Sahakar Pat Sanstha Ltd. [2024 (6) TMI 791 - ITAT PUNE] dealing with similar issue after placing reliance on another decision of this Tribunal in the case of The Ugar Sugar Works Kamgar & Dr. Shirgaokar Shaikshanik Trust Nokar Co-op Credit Society [2021 (11) TMI 1117 - ITAT PANAJI] has held that the interest earned from deposits with Cooperative Banks are also eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act as Cooperative Banks are basically Cooperative Societies only but have turned into Bank on getting necessary banking license.
Where the assessee made investment with the Cooperative Banks we hold that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act for the interest income earned from Cooperative Banks. Findings of the CIT(A) is set-aside and the AO is directed to allow the claim made by the assessee. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1223
Unexplained cash deposits - assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of cash deposits - HELD THT:- It is a fact that the assessee is a retired Government servant and earned income from pension. Since the assessee had earns regular income from pension, the claim of the assessee that the deposits were from past savings, ought to have been believed in absence of any evidence to the contrary.
AO has not brought on record anything to disprove the claim of the assessee that the deposit of was from his past savings or has made any allegation about undisclosed expenditure/investment.
AO must have concrete reasons based on evidence to reject the assessee’s explanation. If the assessee has provided a reasonable explanation, mere disbelief or suspicion is not sufficient to make an addition under the Income Tax Act.
Once the assessee explains the source of deposits, the onus shifts to the AO to prove that such explanation is incorrect or unsatisfactory. If the AO has not brought any contrary evidence to disprove the claim, the addition is unwarranted. There are several judicial rulings where Hon'ble Courts have held that past savings can be a valid source of deposits unless proven otherwise by the Department.Appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1222
Assessment u/s 153A - absence of any incriminating material found as a result of search - disallowance of depreciation on machinery - HELD THAT:- As in respect of completed-unabated assessment, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search u/sec.132 or requisition u/sec.132A. However, in the assessment is abated as on the date of search, the AO shall assess or re-assess the total income taking into consideration the incriminating material and any other material including books of accounts.
In the present case, going by the date of search in the case of assessee i.e., on 02.05.2018, the assessment for the assessment year 2017-2018 is abated. Therefore, in our considered view, the AO can assess the total income on the basis of any other material, but, not only on the basis of the incriminating material found as a result of search.
CIT(A) without considering the relevant facts and further on wrong assumption of facts that the assessment year is unabated as on the date of search, by following the decision of Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. [2023 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT] has deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Thus, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and allow the appeal filed by the Revenue.
Disallowance of payment made to two sub-contractors on the basis of survey operation conducted u/sec.133A of the Act and material found during the course of survey operation coupled with the statement recorded from Chief Financial Officer and Managing Director of the assessee company - In case the assessment is abated as on the date of search, the AO shall assess or re-assess the total income taking into consideration the incriminating material and any other material. In the present case, going by the date of search in the case of assessee i.e., on 02.05.2018, the assessment for the assessment year 2018-2019 is abated.
Therefore, in our considered view, the AO can assess the total income on the basis of any other material, but, not only on the basis of the incriminating material found as a result of search. CIT(A) without considering the relevant facts and further on wrong assessment of facts that the assessment year is unabated as on the date of search and by following the decision of Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd.[2023 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT] has deleted the additions made by the AO. Thus, we set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) and allow the appeal filed by the Revenue.
Additions only on the basis of third party statement unless corroborative evidences are brought on record to substantiate the contents of statement recorded from third party - Once the third party statement is relied upon by the Assessing Officer, he is duty bound to provide the statement to the assessee for his comments and cross-examination. In the present case, AO without providing the statement recorded from Shri Kewalchand Jain to the assessee for his comments and cross-examination, made the additions. Therefore, additions made by the AO on the basis of statement of third party cannot be sustained. Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made towards disallowance of depreciation on plant and machinery.
Additions made towards sub-contract payments - Once addition is made on the basis of enquiries conducted by the AO in our considered view, the findings of the enquiry should be given to the assessee for his comments and rebuttal. In the present case, the AO has made addition only on the basis of enquiry conducted on the sub-contract coupled with statement recorded from the employee of the assessee, but, the fact remains that nowhere in the statement of the employees is there any adverse inference against payment made to these sub-contracts. Therefore, the addition made by the AO on the basis of enquiry conducted on two sub-contractors coupled with the statement recorded from employee of the assessee company, cannot be sustained. Thus, we direct the AO to delete the additions made towards sub-contract payments made to Rayon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., and Sunil Hitech Engineers Ltd.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1221
Addition u/s. 68 - unexplained cash deposits in the absence of maintained books of accounts - HELD THAT:- Here in the present case, it is clear that the AO himself is satisfied that no books of account was maintained by the assessee and therefore addition cannot be made u/s. 68. The coordinate bench of ITAT has explained the books of accounts in the case of DCIT vs GSNR Rice Industries S(P.) LTD REPORTED [2021 (6) TMI 696 - ITAT CHENNAI] held that if there is no books of account maintained, no addition can be made u/s. 68 of the Act. The above judgment is squarely applicable in the present case on hand.
Addition made by the AO towards interest payment u/s. 37 - In this case, the very purpose of reopening of the case is not sustainable, then subsequent addition made by the AO which are not part of the very basis for reopening or part of the reasons recorded, therefore during the course of reassessment proceedings any further addition is made by AO is also not sustainable. See Asha Kansal [2014 (4) TMI 931 - ITAT AGRA]. Thus we delete the addition u/s. 37. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1220
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - deposit of cash in bank accounts - HELD THAT:- AO reopened the assessment on account of deposit of cash in HDFC Bank and IDBI Bank, however, the AO ultimately made addition on the basis of credits in the Indus Bank. We are of the considered view that it is not legally permissible for the AO to reopen the case based on one reason and make additions on reasons other than what was recorded for reopening the case. See ATS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED [2024 (7) TMI 1441 - DELHI HIGH COURT] affirming RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED decision [2011 (6) TMI 4 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that while it is true that the AO would have to establish that reassessment is warranted on account of information in its possession which appears to indicate that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, once the assessment itself is reopened it would not be confined to those subjects only - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1219
Disallowance u/s 14A - suo moto disallowance made by assessee - assessee had not debited any expenses incurred in respect of dividend received from M/s Dabur India Limited which was 97% of the total dividend income received by the assessee - HELD THAT:- As in this case, the assessee has itself revised the disallowance u/s 14A made in its return of income in the revised computation of income filed by the assessee before the AO during the assessment proceedings as discussed by the AO. Therefore, in the present case, the assessee itself agrees that the suo moto disallowance made u/s 14A was not correct and therefore this itself is a sufficient ground to support the satisfaction recorded by him which justifies the satisfaction recorded by the AO for not accepting the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee in its return of income. Therefore, the additional ground filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Disallowance made u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) can be made only in respect of the average monthly value of the investment of the shares/investments which yielded the dividend income - As per revised computation, the assessee further stated that since it has already disallowed a sum in its original return of income and therefore further proposed disallowance u/s 14A of the Act was Rs. 25,34,784/- whereas as per the statement noted by AO in the assessment order (para -6.3), such disallowance comes to Rs. 23,34,064/-. Therefore, the AO is directed to reconcile the same and make disallowance after necessary verification as per law restricting the disallowance @ 1% of the annual average of the monthly average opening and closing balance of the value of the investments in respect of the shares from which dividend income being exempt was earned.
Disallowance of PMS expenses - On perusal of the order of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), the facts regarding the specific purpose for which PMS expenses amounting was utilized has not been examined by both the lower authorities before making the disallowance and its confirmation by the CIT(A). The assessee has also not explained the same before us and the utilization of the PMS expenses requires factual verification before its allowance or otherwise can be decided. Therefore, this issue is set-aside to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the matter de novo after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and in accordance with law. Ground no.1 of the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1218
Rejection of the application for permanent registration u/s 12A - assessee had not chosen the correct provision and therefore he has rejected the application filed in form 10AB - HELD THAT:- The assessee had properly audited their books of accounts and all the financial statements were also furnished before the CIT(E) on which there is no dispute raised by any of the authorities. But the Ld.CIT(E) had rejected the said application in form 10AB on technical grounds i.e. quoting the wrong provision in form 10AB application and on that score the CIT(E) had rejected the said application even though the assessee had submitted that the correct provision may be taken up while deciding the application in form 10AB.
CIT(E) without pointing out any other defects and violations had rejected the said application on technical ground that too without passing a speaking order.
As decided in People for Animals [2024 (6) TMI 1050 - ITAT KOLKATA] as revised Form 10AB filed for the final registration CIT (Exemption) failed to take note of the same and failed to provide opportunity to the assessee - restore this issue of final registration to the file of ld. CIT (Exemption) - final registration should be granted as per the revised application filed by the assessee incorporating the correct Section code.
Thus, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(E) with a direction to the Ld.CIT(E) to consider the application filed by the assessee in the correct provision or allow the assessee to amend the said form 10AB filed on 23/11/2023 and decide the same on merits. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1217
Assessment u/s 153A - assessment order as passed without the valid approval u/s 153D - HELD THAT:- As assessment order was framed by the AO u/s 153A(1)(b) of the Act with the prior approval of the Joint commissioner. The joint commissioner of Income Tax has granted the single approval for the seven years A.Y. i.e 2010-11 to 2016-17 by the letter no F. No. JCIT(CR)/GGN/2017-18/951 in a mechanical manner without due application of mind.
Thus, no hesitation in holding that the approval u/s 153D of the Act, granted by JCIT in the instant case was mechanical manner and without due application of mind. We declared the assessment as bad in law. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1216
Assessment u/s 153C OR 143(3) - assessment u/s 143(3) wherein additions have been made on the basis of the documents seized from the possession of the persons search in whose case no satisfaction is recorded that those papers belong to the assessee - HELD THAT:-The satisfaction note for initiating the proceedings u/s 153C was recorded by the AO of the assessee on 10/10/2024 thus Assessment Year relevant for previous year in which search was conducted in the case of the assessee should be the AY 2015-16 and the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant for the previous year in which search was conducted for initiating proceeding u/s 153C of the Act will be AY 2009-10 to 2014-15 and the impugned year i.e. AY 2013-14 is fallen in such block period thus the assessment should have been completed u/s 153C and not u/s 143(3) as has been done in the present case. In view of this discussion and by respectfully following the judgement of Jasjit Singh [2014 (11) TMI 1012 - ITAT DELHI] which has been affirmed by high court as reported [2015 (8) TMI 982 - DELHI HIGH COURT] on similar facts, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dt. 27/03/2015 is hereby quashed. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1215
Registration u/s 80G - revenue rejected the application filed by the assessee on the basis that the application is filed under wrong section - HELD THAT:- We find merits in the submissions of the assessee, as the application filed by the assessee in Form No.10AB under clause (ii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act was for renewal of the registration already available with the assessee.
In the present case, since the assessee was already an approved trust, we are of the considered view that the application was rightly made by the assessee under clause (ii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act, and grant of provisional approval cannot be sole basis for rejecting the same.
Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we restore the application filed by the assessee for renewal of regular approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act to the file of the learned CIT(E) for de novo adjudication - Assessee ground allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1214
Assessment u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A - addition on account of disallowance of Long Term Capital Gain held as bogus and sham transaction - HELD THAT:- The entire exercise of the AO is based on the regular return filed and no material found and seized during the course of search was referred. This being so in our opinion, no addition could be made in the order passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act.
This view is duly supported by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell [2023 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT] in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search u/s 132 or requisition u/s 132A - the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved.
Thus, no addition could be made de-hors seized material, therefore, the addition made is herby deleted. Decided in favour of assessee.
Legality of assessment completed u/s 143(3) - The assessment order under appeal i.e., A.Y. 2015-16 notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 24.11.2016 i.e., after the date of recording of satisfaction note u/s 153C in the case of the assessee.
Since, satisfaction note for initiation of proceedings u/s 153C was recorded on 10.11.2016 in the case of the assessee, in view of the proviso of 153C(1) the date of search would be the date when the seized material was handed over to the AO of assessee satisfaction note is recorded i.e., on 10.11.2016, thus, the search year would be A.Y.2017-18 and six years for which proceedings 153C could be initiated were AY 2011-12 to AY 2016-17.
AY 2015-16 i.e., year before us also fallen within the block period of six years, therefore, the assessment for AY 2015-16 must be completed u/s 153C and not u/s 143(3) of the Act, therefore, the orders so passed u/s 143(3) is bad in law.
As in the case of Jasjit Singh [2015 (8) TMI 982 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has expressed the similar view and the said order is affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court also. ITAT, Delhi in the case of Raja Varshney [2024 (9) TMI 1625 - ITAT DELHI] and Akansha Gupta [2024 (7) TMI 1133 - ITAT DELHI] also expressed the same view - As the assessment completed u/s 143(3) for A.Y.2015-16 is bad in law and, therefore, is quashed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1213
Rejection of application for renewal of registration u/s.12AB - 'Charitable purpose' u/s 2(15) - HELD THAT:- The undisputed fact that the main object of the trust is to provide medical relief to patients suffering from diabetes. On facts on record, we find that the assessee trust maintains separate accounts for funds mobilised from various sources and such funds are utilised for purchase of insulin etc for supplying to the poor patients free of cost. We find that "Charitable purpose' includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief and any other object of public utility. These activities are tax exempt.
In the present case, the assessee trust primary objective is to provide the medical relief to poor, which falls within first three limbs of section 2(15) and hence the proviso to section 2(15) does not attract to the appellant trust. The MDTC, a unit of assessee trust is carrying on incidental activities to the main objective of the trust and further, on facts on record assessee trust maintain separate books of account for such incidental activity.
CIT(E) had rejected the application seeking registration u/s 12AB and cancelled the existing registration citing that the percentage of receipts from commercial activity is determined to 36.94% based on assumption and treating 50% of voluntary contributions from general public as receipts from MDTC and also citing that no separate books of accounts were maintained for MDTC. However, the assessee trust had maintained separate books of account for Trust and MDTC (two separate tally accounts were maintained).
CIT(E) has grossly erred in making presumption that 50% of amount received from general public as receipts from the diabetic clinic without any evidence and arriving at mentioned 36.94%. Moreover, as mentioned the proviso to section 2(15) is applicable only to the entities whose purpose is 'advancement of any other object of general public utility' and as per the circular 11 of 2008 and judicial pronouncements, the said proviso would not applicable to the assessee trust as the main objective is medical relief to poor.
We hold that the CIT [Exemption] has wrongly cancelled the registration granted to the assessee trust under section 12AB - Appeal filed by assessee trust is allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1212
TDS u/s 195 - payments made in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) - payments made towards Global brand, Global Communications and Global technology/Knowledge Management - HELD THAT:- Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2018-19 and 2019-20 [2022 (7) TMI 1586 - ITAT MUMBAI] held that payments made to Deloitte Global Services Pvt. Ltd., do not fall in the scope and definition of ‘royalty’ under Article 13(1) of India UK DTAA and consequently, assessee was not required to deduct tax while making the payment to DGSHL.
Thus, we hold that the payments made to DGSHL do not fall within the scope and ambit of royalty under Article 13 of India UK DTAA and consequently, assessee was not required to deduct TDS while making the payment. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1211
Disallowance of Aborted IPO Expenditure u/sec 37 - whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee for raising fresh capital of Rs. 1000/- crores pertained completely to the proposed equity share capital of Rs. 400 crores for the assessee or was partly related to offer for sale by promoters of Rs. 600 crores also? - HELD THAT:-Section 37 of the Act explicitly excludes capital expenditure from the ambit of deductible business expenditure. Therefore, as a general principle, share issue expenses, being in the nature of capital expenditure, are not admissible for deduction u/s 37 of the Act. The legislature has carved out a specific provision u/s 35D of the Act, permitting the deduction of share issue expenses in a proportionate manner over a period of five years, subject to the fulfillment of stipulated conditions.
Similarly, in the case of expenditure incurred for raising loan capital, the statutory framework provides an express allowance under section 36(1)(iii). It is also pertinent to distinguish between capital expenditure incurred for creation of a capital asset or project of enduring benefit to the company and expenditure on an abandoned project. In the latter scenario, provided such expenditure is directly linked to the business of the assessee, it may qualify for deduction under section 37 of the Act.
However, in the case of share issue expenses, which serve the primary purpose of capital augmentation, the statutory scheme expressly treats them as capital in nature, thereby precluding their deduction under section 37, save as permitted under section 35D. We find that in the instant case also the part of the expenses out of Rs. 10.22 crores pertains for raising share capital, although the plan of the assessee for raising such capital could not go through and the assessee aborted the entire process, still the intended application of the expenses was toward increase in share capital.
Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nimbus Communication Ltd.[2011 (12) TMI 696 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has categorically held that expenses incurred towards aborted share issue expenditure falls u/s 37 of the Act.
Thus, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and direct the AO to delete the addition, subject to quantum related to increase of equity base of assessee, other than expenses pertaining to ‘OFS’ related to promoters. Appeal of the assessee is stands allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1210
Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts - HELD THAT:- AO disallowed the claim without examining the submitted documents, making the disallowance arbitrary and baseless. The requirement for a remand report did not arise, as the CIT(A) adjudicated the appeal based on documents already on record during the assessment stage.
AO’s procedural lapse in passing the assessment order just nine days after issuing the show-cause notice, despite having more time, deprived the assessee of a fair opportunity to present her case, violating the principles of natural justice.
Revenue has failed to bring forth any substantial grounds to contradict the detailed findings of the CIT(A) or demonstrate how the CIT(A)’s reliance on the statutory audit and evidence was incorrect. Accordingly, we find that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions made by the AO. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1209
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - Revision based merely based on the audit objections raised - Excess stock applying the provisions of section 69 read with section 115BBE - HELD THAT:- The proceeding initiated in this case by ld. PCIT emanates from the recommendation of the ld. AO so as to take remedial action on the audit objection and there is no independent examination of the records by the ld. PCIT.
As regards the judicial precedent on the issue of initiating the provision of section 263 merely based on the audit objection invalidate the jurisdiction of the PCIT, various judicial precedents were cited including the latest decision [2024 (12) TMI 805 - ITAT JAIPUR] as held since the ld. PCIT based on the borrowed information and has not established as to how the view taken by the ld. AO is not correct when the issue raised has already been form part of the proceeding before the ld. AO. Based on the discussion so recorded we are of the considered view that the proceeding initiated u/s. 263 is merely based on the audit objection, PCIT is not agreement with the ld. AO and the observation on the stock, in the audit reportalready filed by the assessee. Thus, there is clear absence of his satisfaction and there is no independent view of the ld. PCIT even on merits. Thus, we quash the order passed by ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act.
On being consistent with the findings so recorded in the order referred to herein above, we quash the order passed by ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act.
At the time of hearing the appeal ld DR did not cite any contrary judgment and therefore, having regard to the findings recorded by this co-ordinate bench in the case of Mahendra Kumar Sharma [2024 (12) TMI 805 - ITAT JAIPUR] there is merit in the ground no. 1 raised by the assessee.
Disallow ESI/PF for the month of February 2018 to March 2018 on account of delay in depositing the same based on the provision of section 36(1)(va) - The assessee-appellant submitted to the Assessing Officer had clarified that issue and AO after due verification of books of accounts & other relevant records was satisfied that there was some mismatch in the figures of salary as per Audit Report and as per Income Tax Return as the same was merely a grouping error, while filing the income tax return, however, overall salary remained same and he thus chose not to disallow. When the issue raised by the ld. PCIT is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue the same could not be subjected to revision merely based on the making the enquiry a fresh. Thus, ground no. 2 raised by the assessee stands allowed.
Variance in stock as found which was offered for tax as business income by the assessee-appellant - When there was proper application of mind on the part of the AO after having examined during the course of assessment proceedings, it is not a case where necessary inquiries have not been carried out by the ld. AO. When two views are possible ld. AO after considering the submission accepted the view of the assessee-appellant, and said approach does not automatically hold the assessment order erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
AO accepted the plea that assessee appellant has no other income other than business income.
As in Bajargan Traders [2017 (11) TMI 388 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] has held that the investment in the excess stock has to be brought to tax under the head “business income” and not under the head income from other sources. This view has also been taken in PCIT v. Dharti Estate [2024 (1) TMI 1197 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] Gayatri Devi [2023 (10) TMI 23 - ITAT JAIPUR], Ravinder Kumar Bansal [2023 (12) TMI 716 - ITAT CHANDIGARH], Vaidya Realities [2024 (1) TMI 970 - ITAT RAJKOT] Thus, ground no. 3 raised by the assessee-appellant has also merit.
Disallow interest expenses u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D - Amendment made by Finance Act, 2022 whereby the Explanation was inserted is prospective in nature and would not apply retrospectively. In this regard, reference may be made to decision of Avantha Realty Ltd. [2024 (6) TMI 987 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] and Era Infrastructure Ltd [2022 (7) TMI 1093 - DELHI HIGH COURT] which had taken note of the decision in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. [2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that amendment by the Finance Act, 2022 of Section 14A of the Act by inserting a non-obstante clause and explanation was to take effect from 01.04.22 and cannot be presumed to have retrospective effect and, therefore, on facts the amendment cannot be applied to the assessment year under consideration. Based on these observations, ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is also allowed.
Disallow the claim of deduction u/s. 10AA made in the return of income so filed - AO verified the claim of the assessee after the survey and also made variation on account of price variation between the SEZ unit and that of the DTA unit - Amendment [i.eExpl. 2(a)] does not confer blind powers. It is held that despite there being an amendment, enlarging the scope of the revisionary power of the ld. PCIT u/s 263 to some extent, it cannot justify the invoking of the Expl. 2(a) in the facts of the present case. Before referring to that Explanation, one has to understand what the true meaning of the Explanation in the context of application of mind by a quasi-judicial authority was.
In Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. ITO [2016 (5) TMI 1162 - ITAT MUMBAI] it was held that newly inserted Explanation 2(a) to Sec. 263 does not authorize or give unfettered powers to Commissioner to revise each and every order, if in his (subjective) opinion, same has been passed without making enquiries or verification which should have been made.
Here, AO had examined the issue of allowability of section 10AA in hands of the assessee. In the case of Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. [1976 (11) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] held “At the same time, we have to bear in mind that the policy of law is that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings, that stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage and that lapse of time must induce repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity”.
Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1208
Seeking release of the two detained gold items on the ground that the same are personal jewellery of the Petitioner - Time limitation - HELD THAT:- Once the goods are detained, it is mandatory to issue a show cause notice and afford a hearing to the Petitioner. The time prescribed under Section 110 of The Customs Act, 1962, is a period of six months and subject to complying with the formalities, a further extension for a period of six months can be taken by the Department for issuing the show cause notice.
Since the outer period of one year has also elapsed in the present case, the goods of the Petitioner deserve to be released. Moreover, they were personal jewellery of the Petitioner which could not have been detained in the first place.
Let both the gold items be released to the Petitioner without payment of any storage charges within four weeks - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1207
Seeking issuance of an appropriate writ setting aside the seizure of goods (personal jewellery) detained by the Customs Department of the Petitioners - HELD THAT:- When the Petitioners landed at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on 29th July, 2024, the personal jewellery of Petitioner No. 1, containing of one gold kangan, four gold rings, one gold necklace along with also personal jewellery of Petitioner No. 2 containing of one gold chain with pendant, one gold kada and three gold rings were seized by the customs officers. The detention receipt was issued on 29th July, 2024. The total weight of the products seized was 318 grams and 597 grams.
The Court has perused the documents placed. Clearly, the Petitioners are Indian citizens who were coming back after attending a social family event in the USA and the jewellery which was owned by them were their personal effects - The detention took place in July 2024 and show cause notice has also not been issued.
There can be no justification for detaining the said goods. The same shall accordingly be released within four weeks to the Petitioners in person or through an authorized representative subject to verification - no storage charges shall be collected by the Customs Department.
Conclusion - There are no justification for the detention of the goods, particularly as no show cause notice had been issued since the seizure. The goods are ordered to be released.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1206
Classification of goods - PVC Resin Grade SP 660 (Suspension Grade) - CESTAT, Chennai refused to entertain the matter and had disposed it on the ground of monetary value - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the same product is involved even in the order passed by CESTAT, Chennai and the classification of this product for the period prior to 2017 has not been settled, this Court deems it appropriate to remand the matter to CESTAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi for a fresh adjudication on the classification issue itself and not to dispose of the matter on merely the monetary limit.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1205
Seeking issuance of an appropriate writ directing the Respondent to release the electronic devices of the Petitioners - smuggling of substantial quantity of foreign origin gold in a completely concealed manner through triangular valves - HELD THAT:- If any particular document, which is downloaded from the devices of the Petitioners is also relied upon by the Respondent either in the show cause notice proceedings or in the prosecution complaint, the said Relied Upon Documents (RUDs) shall be listed and copies shall be provided to the Petitioners. In light of the above, the Petitioner would not raise any objections as to non-fulfilment of any requirement under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 and Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962.
This process could be adopted by the Commissioner of Customs in all the Commissionerates, so that persons from whom devices are seized can be returned the same, after the data is copied. The retention of the devices throughout the Show Cause Notice (SCN) proceedings and the prosecutions, unless essential, could then be avoided, as the devices themselves may become completely out-dated and retrieval of data from the same after a few years also becomes difficult. The proper copying of the data and retention of the same on Servers in the Customs Department would also make it accessible to the investigation officers as also other personnel.
Conclusion - The return of electronic devices ordered, after data copying, with the Petitioners agreeing not to object to the data's mode of proof. A standard procedure for data retrieval and preservation was recommended.
Petition disposed off.
............
|
9911796707
