|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 1570 Records
-
2024 (5) TMI 1310
Challenge to review application - petition filed by the petitioner did not arise from proceedings under Section 129 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Once the Supreme Court had caused of effect of disposal of Writ Tax No.1635 of 2018, the consequential order passed by this Court had been forced on it, in view of deemed disposal caused by the earlier order of the Supreme Court. The main writ proceedings having been thus disposed of by the Supreme Court, the review sought of the order of this Court is misconceived. If at all, remedy lies elsewhere.
The review application is rejected.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1309
Demand including penalty u/s 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner was unaware of the initiation of any proceedings and accordingly could not respond to the same - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Petitioner has made out a case that Petitioner has missed out the receipt of the notice as it was merely uploaded on the portal under the category of “Additional Notices” tab and accordingly could not respond to the Show Cause Notice.
The impugned order 04.12.2023 is set aside. Since the only reason for passing the impugned order is that Petitioner had not filed any reply/explanation, Petitioner needs to be granted one opportunity to respond to the Show Cause Notice and thereafter, the Show Cause Notice to be re-adjudicated - Respondent are directed to open the portal to enable the Petitioner to file a response to the said Show Cause Notice dated 23.09.2023 which shall be filed within a period of four weeks.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1308
Violation of principles of natural justice - Validity of order u/s 73 of CGST Act, 2017 - impugned order does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the Petitioner and is a cryptic order - HELD THAT:- The observation in the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply dated 09.01.2024 and 27.02.2024 filed by the Petitioner are detailed replies with supporting documents. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion. He merely held that the reply is not properly replied/filed without any justification which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner - Further, if the Proper Officer was of the view that any further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the Petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the Petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details.
The impugned order dated 29.04.2024 cannot be sustained and is set aside - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1307
Retrospective cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner - SCN does not give any reasons for cancellation - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The SCN and the impugned order are bereft of any details. Neither the Show Cause Notice, nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation. They also do not give any particulars of the alleged wrongful availment of ITC from SAI Enterprises and Mahadev Enterprises. Accordingly, the same cannot be sustained.
In terms of Section 29(2) of the Act, the proper officer may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit if the circumstances set out in the said sub-section are satisfied. Registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically. It can be cancelled only if the proper officer deems it fit to do so. Such satisfaction cannot be subjective but must be based on some objective criteria. Merely, because a taxpayer has not filed the returns for some period does not mean that the taxpayer’s registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when the returns were filed and the taxpayer was compliant - it is not apposite to examine this aspect but assuming that the respondent’s contention is required to consider this aspect while passing any order for cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect. Thus, a taxpayer's registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted.
It is clear that both the petitioner and the respondent want the GST registration to be cancelled, though for different reasons.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1306
Availment of excess Input Tax Credit - comparison of GSTR-2A with GSTR-3B filed by the Petitioner - HELD THAT:- The taxpayer has not rendered his cooperation in this regard. Further, during the course of physical hearing the company has mentioned that the ITC data of the firm is now reflected in 2A after the completion of the special audit. The same has been checked through online portal of GSTIN and found that there is still mismatch in the CGST & SGST for the year 2018-19. And whereas, the undersigned with the consider opinion that the observations/facts derived during the course of audit must be confirmed. And whereas, further as per Section 73 (7) Notice of tax and interest is to be given while Section 73 (9) prescribes for imposition of penalty equivalent to 10% of tax or Rs. 10000/- whichever is higher in case reply is not found to be satisfactory. Accordingly, a demand is being created towards Tax /Interest amount already confirmed through SCN/ DRC-01 (Copy attached) in accordance with the provisions of CGST / DGST Act & Rules, 2017.”
The observation in the impugned order dated 27.04.2024 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply filed by the Petitioner is a detailed reply with supporting documents. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion. He merely held that the reply is not substantial to counter the observation of the auditor which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner.
The impugned order dated 27.04.2024 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside - petition disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1305
Release of detained goods - Penalty order - appealable order or not - HELD THAT:- The writ petition is disposed of with a direction, subject to the petitioner making a proper application before respondent no.2 to seek release of goods under Section 129 (1) (a) of the CGST Act, 2017, the goods and vehicle may be released subject to petitioner depositing the tax and penalty in terms of 129 (1) (a) of the CGST Act, 2017. Notwithstanding such deposit, the petitioner may be entitled to appeal against the penalty that may eventually be imposed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1304
Retrospective cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner - no proper reasons given for cancellation - petitioner had no opportunity to even object to the retrospective cancellation of the registration - violation of principles of natural justice.
No proper SCN - HELD THAT:- The SCN and the impugned order are also bereft of any details. Neither the Show Cause Notice, nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation. Accordingly, the same cannot be sustained. However, as the petitioner is no longer interested in continuing the business, the Show Cause Notice is not quashed.
Retrospective Cancellation of GST Registration - HELD THAT:- Merely, because a taxpayer has not filed the returns for some period does not mean that the taxpayer’s registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when the returns were filed and the taxpayer was compliant - it is not considered apposite to examine this aspect but assuming that the respondent’s contention is required to consider this aspect while passing any order for cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect. Thus, a taxpayer's registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1303
Appeal filed by the petitioner u/s 11 of the GST Act against the assessment order - HELD THAT:- The respondent No. 3 is directed to consider and decide the appeal filed by the petitioner at an earliest preferably within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is served upon him. Till the decision to be taken by respondent No. 3, the interim direction passed on 15.01.2020 shall continue.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1302
Estimation of 'pit filling' expenses - CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeal in part by estimating the pit filling expenses at Rs. 104 per ton - Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that the finding recorded by the CIT(A) in estimating the pit filling expenses is without any basis and has to be reconsidered by the assessing officer after granting opportunity to the assessee.- HELD THAT:- The revenue in this appeal has not alleged or pleaded that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse. Further the order of the Tribunal remanding the matter to the assessing officer is without expressing any opinion on merits of the case. The order of remand would not prejudice the interest of the revenue or the assessee. No substantial question of law would arise for consideration of this Court from the order of Tribunal.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1301
Dismissal of assessee’s appeal as not maintainable and having become infructuous due to the pendency of liquidation process - Penalty passed u/s 271 imposed on assessee’s failure to get its accounts audited u/s. 44AB - Whether, the provisions of the IBC code 2016 would prevail over the Income Tax Act 1961, and if so to what extent?
HELD THAT:- The provisions of IBC 2016 would prevail over the Income Tax Act. However, Income Tax authorities have limited jurisdiction to assess/determine the quantum of Income Tax dues, but have no authority to initiate recovery of such dues at its own during the period of moratorium in violation of Section 14 or 33(5) of the IBC. The Income Tax Authorities are like any other creditor, may stake their claim before liquidator in the statutory limitation period provided under the IBC. The first point is accordingly determined in positive in favour of the assessee.
Whether CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the issue on merit, merely because of the pendency of the liquidation process against the assessee corporate debtor? - As in view of the findings given at point no.1, it is easily concluded that Learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the matter which was with respect to the determination of tax dues only, more so, when the liquidator, himself, was pursuing the matter. The second point is accordingly determined in positive in favour of the assessee and against the revenue department.
Failure to Adjudicate on Merit - CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issues involved before him on merit despite no legal impediments. The learned representative of the assessee company has filed electronically generated copy of the order dated 02.04.2024, passed against the reassessment order dated 17.05.2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act for the relevant Assessment Year 2017–18, wherein the part of additions were not found sustainable due to moratorium imposed upon the appellant corporate debtor u/s. 33(5) of IBC. This apart, part of additions u/s. 69A of the Act have also not been adjudicated. This submission of appellant is not fruitful in view of our findings recorded at point No. 1 in respect of the fact that the income tax authorities are not barred from determining the tax dues during the moratorium imposed upon the appellant assessee/corporate debtor in terms of section 14 or section 33(5) of the IBC 2016. In view of our finding given at point No. 1 and 2 above, the case deserves to be restored back to the file of learned CIT(A).
-
2024 (5) TMI 1300
Condonation of Delay - appeal was delayed by 506 days - "sufficient cause" of delay explained or not? - as submitted delay was due to the receiver not opening the email containing the order. The Chartered Accountant discovered the rejection while checking the ITBA portal for the assessment order - HELD THAT:- The assessee has filed the appeal after an inordinate delay of 506 days. The reason given is that while checking fate of the assessment order, the CA also checked the status of application for registration and found that the application has been rejected. It means that the assessee was primarily concerned about the fate of assessment order. The CA also checked the fate of the application filed for registration while checking the assessment order.
It is thus crystal clear that after filing the application, it had remained inactive and negligent. There was no due diligence on the part of the assessee. This fact shows the lackadaisical attitude of the assessee towards the registration of the trust and subsequent follow up action indulging filing of appeal. Such casual, indifferent and lackadaisical approach towards the order of rejection of registration cannot constitute “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section 253(5) of the Act. In view of the above facts and respectfully following the authoritative precedents cited supra, we refuse to condone the delay, requested by the assessee.
Since, delay has not been condoned, it becomes academic in nature to discuss the merit of the case.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1299
Allowable expenditure u/s 37(1) - Deduction from the remuneration and interest received by the assessee as partner of the firm - expenses claimed by the assessee towards interest on car loan, depreciation on the car, fuel expenses and salary of the driver of the car - specific provisions of chargeability to tax are mentioned u/s 28(ii) to 28(iii) - DR submitted that the assessee was earning profit from the firm which was exempted under section 10(2A)
HELD THAT:- There is no dispute regarding the fact that assessee has received interest and remuneration from the firm in which he is a partner. This is over and above share profit of the firm received by the assessee, which is not included in total income of the assessee in view of provisions u/s 10(2A) of the Act. Hence, the interest on capital and remuneration is liable to be taxed under the specific provisions of chargeability to tax u/s 28(v) under the head “profits and gains of business as provisions”.
The assessee would be, accordingly, eligible to claim deduction mentioned u/s 30 to 43D of the Act. The assessee has claimed the impugned expenditure u/s 37 of the Act, which is a residual section and deals with general deduction.
For any expenditure to be eligible for deduction under sub-section (1) of the Section 37, all the following conditions should be satisfied: (i) the expenditure should not be covered by sections 30 to 36 of the Act, (ii) expenditure should not be capital in nature, (iii) it should not be personal expenditure of the assessee, (iv) it should be incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession, (v) it should be incurred during the year and (vi) it should not be incurred for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law.
As seen from the details on record that the expenses pertained to the car owned by the assessee. The assessee claimed that it was used by him for business purposes and no expenditure was claimed by the firm. This has not been disputed by Revenue. However, no evidence has been given by the assessee to support his claim that it was used only for the purpose of business and it was not at all used for any personal purpose. In absence of requisite details, we deem it proper to allow 50% of the expenditure for business purposes and the other 50% of it towards personal use of the car. Thus, disallowance made by Assessing Officer is restricted to Rs. 2,71,322/- instead of Rs. 54,26,44/- in the assessment order. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1298
Interest income received on account of land acquisition - Income from other sources - Addition of interest received u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on enhanced compensation - Revenue, referring to statutory amendments in section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 57(iv) r.w.s. 145B(i) inserted by the Finance Act, 2009, contended that such interest income is taxable - HELD THAT:- We notice that the honourable jurisdictional high court’s decision in Rupesh Rashmikant Shah vs. Union of India [2019 (8) TMI 518 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has already settled the issue in assessee’s favour and against the department so far as the assessment of such an interest income u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition law is concerned.
Also recently decided in SHRI KUSUM JAYRAM THAKUR DHUTUM [2024 (5) TMI 343 - ITAT PUNE] has already settled the issue in assessee’s favour and against the department wherein as held that taxability of the assessee’s interest income received under section 28 of the Act is covered in assessee’s favour as per the hon’ble high court’s Bombay bench [2019 (8) TMI 518 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] holding that the same is not taxable under section 56(2)(viii) of the Act as against the Revenue’s contentions that the Aurangabad bench of the very hon’ble jurisdictional high court has taken a divergent view against the taxpayer in Shivajirao and Others [2013 (8) TMI 1160 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee.
Addition of interest income derived from fixed deposits towards joint bank guarantee - this taxpayer claims that the same also has accrued in the hands of his sister Smt. Kunda Thakur - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the Assessing Officer’s detailed discussion reveals that his sister had nowhere offered the said interest income in her return filed for the impugned assessment year. AO has rather been fair enough in even taking note of her computation to this effect - Faced with this situation, we hardly see any merit in the assessee’s instant latter substantive ground so far as assessment of the impugned interest income is concerned. Decided against assessee.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1297
Denial of standard deduction and Chapter VIA deductions u/s 80C - original return of income was filed under the Old Tax Regime which was revised under the New Tax Regime - CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO placing reliance on the provisions of section 115BAC - appellant is an individual deriving income under the head “Salaries” - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, in the present case, the original return of income was filed on 29.07.2022 under the Old Tax Regime which was revised on 10.08.2022 under the New Tax Regime. Once the original return of income is substituted by filing a valid revised return, the natural consequence is that earlier return would be effaced or obliterated for all the purposes under the Income-tax Act.
Therefore, it is not open for the AO to advert to the original return of income or the statement filed along with original return of income. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgments of Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers [1991 (1) TMI 70 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and CIT Vs. Machine Tool Corporation of India Ltd. (1992 (8) TMI 37 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) to fortify our view.
Admittedly, under the provisions of section 115BAC, once the assessee opts for the New Tax Regime, he is not entitled to either the standard deduction u/s. 16 or the Chapter VIA deductions. The CPC had rightly processed the return of income. Therefore, we do not find any error in the approach adopted by the CPC. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1296
Validity of rectification order passed u/s 154 - discrepancy in income computation - treatment of withdrawn amount from provident fund as taxable income - error in the intimation passed in the section 143 (1) - assessee is an employee who has derived income from the salary
HELD THAT:- Earlier year assessee was employed with other entity. He found his previous employer from 24 September 2009 to 13 February 2015. Therefore, apparent that service of the assessee is more than five years. The assessee has offered and fund account from his previous employer namely Larsen and Toubro officers and supervisory staff provident fund. On 22 November 2016, assessee has written a sum of Rs. 3,291,601/– which is reflected in form number 26AS of the assessee wherein it shown that the above amount is paid to the assessee however total tax deducted thereon and deposited thereon is Rs Nil .
In the rectified return of income filed by the assessee in schedule EI assessee has specifically disclosed at serial number 5 of details of exempt income wherein Rs. 3,291,601/– is stated to be exempt income. The total of the exempt income earned by the assessee is Rs. 4,245,904/–. In view of this is apparent that assessee has disclosed the above amount is exempt income.
Therefore, the order passed by the lower authorities are not sustainable in holding that the above sum withdrawn by the assessee from employees’ Provident fund account after serving for more than five years with his previous employer.it is not denied that if the above conditions are satisfied, the income is exempt u/s 10 (12) of the act.
Therefore, no merit in the orders of the lower authorities which were passed without looking into the facts of the case stated in 2 rectification applications filed before the containing all the evidence. In view of this, we direct the learned assessing officer to delete the addition made of withdrawal made by the assessee from his provident fund account which is exempt u/s 10 (12) of the act. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1295
Exemption u/s 11 - belated filing of return of income - mistake in filing the corresponding columns in the return of income - HEL D THAT:- The assessee trust is duly registered u/s 12AA of the Act and is eligible to claim deduction as applicable to a charitable trust.
Prior to amendment made by the Finance Act, 2016, Section 139(4) provided that a person who has not furnished a return within the time allowed to him under sub-section (1), or within the time allowed under a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142, may furnish the return for any previous year at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. This amendment is with effect from 1.4.2017. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the assessee, that the due date of filing belated return was 31.03.2018 and not 31.03.2017 is correct. CIT(A) is erred in considering the due date u/s 139(4) as 31.03.2017.
From the audited financial statements and form 10B submitted by the assessee it could be seen that there are no any amounts spent by the assessee trust for the benefit of persons referred to in section 13(3) of the act. Therefore, as contented by the counsel for the assessee, it is a mistake while filing the return of income to fill the amount of Rs. 40,66,996/- in the column relating to income chargeable under section 12(2) of the Act. As admitted by the assessee, it is mistake in filing the return of income.
After perusal of Form No.10B as placed on record, it could be seen that the assessee has applied an amount of Rs. 40,66,996/- for the purpose of charitable objectives of the trust. Merely because there is mistake in filing the corresponding columns in the return of income, the same would not result into enhancement of the assessee’s income.Since the return of income filed by the assessee is valid and also processed by CPC Bengaluru u/s 143(1) of the Act, action of CIT(A) in treating the return of income non-est is unjust.
Claim denied on late filing of form 10B - HELD THAT:- The assessee filed the form 10B along with the return of income i.e. on 31.03.2018 which is beyond the due date.
The proviso to section 143(1)(a) of the Act specifically provides that no adjustment shall be made unless (as specified in clause (a) to section 143(1) of the Act) intimation is given to the assessee trust of such adjustment either in writing or in electronic mode and in case response is not received within 30 days the adjustment can be made. In the present case no such notice whatsoever has been given to the assessee.
The assessee has also placed reliance on the decision of the coordinate bench in which it is decided, after referring the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, that non-filing of Audit Report is a procedural omission and cannot be impediment in law in claiming the exemption and condoned the delay in filing audit report in form 10B.
Respectfully following the order of the co-ordinate bench [2024 (2) TMI 629 - ITAT AHMEDABAD], we condone the delay in filing the form 10B.
We are of the considered view that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence set aside the same after deleting the addition made on account of income u/s 12(2) and allowing the exemption u/s 11 of the Act to the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1294
Accrual of income - Chargeability of income-tax attributable to surcharge income offered by the assessee on receipt basis - real v/s hypothetical income - assessee argued that the surcharge, calculated at 15% per annum for delayed payments, should be taxed only upon actual receipt - AO has rejected the assessee’s method of accounting for surcharge and did not take into account the accounting standards as applicable to the assessee company - HELD THAT:- As decided in DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD., HISAR [2014 (11) TMI 58 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] basic principles of accrual or mercantile system as laid down by various authorities are to be applied in a careful manner. The assessee being a sate PSU; the surcharge on delayed payment being disputable item; was not mandatorily payable at the time of payment of electricity consumption bill; was not an accrued receipt in view of the accounting policy accepted by the revenue. Therefore, such amount of surcharge cannot be held to be taxable as it is not the real income of the assessee and is hypothetical by nature in given facts and circumstances.
Thus as AO has to verify the fact as to when the surcharge was realized and offered as income. Thus while allowing the grounds in all the appeal covered by this issue, we direct the assessing officer to consider the claim of the assessee after verifying the year in which the surcharge income has been offered to tax.
Addition u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Revenue is aggrieved with the findings of the learned first appellate authority wherein relief is granted to assessee by reducing the quantum of disallowances made by the assessing officer and the assessee is aggrieved with the additions sustained - Assessee requested that additional evidence i.e. the certificate of the CA issued with respect to the expenses incurred for the purpose of exempt income may kindly be taken on record - HELD THAT:- Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, we admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee i.e. the certificate of the CA and restore the issue to the assessing officer for examining it afresh. Needless to say that the Assessing Officer will grant sufficient opportunity to the assessee while giving effect to the directions of this order.
In Assessment Year 2014-15, Ld. Counsel has raised additional contention that the investments were made from the own funds of the assessee and not from the borrowed funds and hence no disallowances is permissible in view of the judgment of HDFC Bank [2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] That being the settled position of law to which Ld. DR has not rebutted anything. We direct the assessing officer also to examine the position of own funds in the impugned years while deciding the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act.
Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1293
Disallowance of relief u/s. 89 - Validity of assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) - difference between the returned income and assessed income - as per DR in view of the proviso to Section 89 no such relief can be granted in respect of any amount received by the assessee on his voluntary retirement or termination of the service - HELD THAT:- Paper book contains the particulars of assessee’s income for the relevant assessment year 2017–18 in form no. 10E as provided under rule 21AA of the income tax rules 1962, where in details of advance of salary arrears have been descripted. Paper book has the submissions of assessee in detail. However assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, does not speak even in respect of any defect in the particulars submitted by the assessee.
CIT(A) has surprisingly passed the impugned order without adjudicating on the main issue involved, with the excuse that no finding was given by Assessing Officer with regard to the disallowance of relief Under Section 89.
It is well settled legal position that a quasi judicial authority is required to pass reasoned orders. The reasoned orders are the soul and one of the important component of the principles of natural Justice. We, therefore quash the non speaking impugned order dated 18.10.23 passed by learned CIT(A) and non speaking assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act by Assessing Officer. The case is restored to the file of assessing officer for making the reasoned assessment order afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant assessee. Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1292
Addition u/s 68 - unsecured loans - CIT(A) has considered certain part of the loan transactions as suspicious as there were immediate credit of the exact amounts just a few days before the loan was given to the assessee - HELD THAT:- The assessee had submitted that these credits were sourced by loans from family members/HUF, however, in the absence of confirmations to corroborate the same, the ld. CIT (A) has not considered them duly explained.
HELD THAT:- The Bench is of the considered view that when the assessee, for the purpose of section 68 of the Act, establishes the identity of the creditors and the Revenue accepts the genuineness of a part of the transaction, it is not justified to disbelieve remaining part of the transaction by mere attribution of suspicion. The burden having been discharged partly, the onus was on the Revenue to establish by some substantive evidences or series of circumstances, rather than bare suspicion on the basis of what is termed as 'happy coincidence of loan being followed by credit entries of similar amounts', more particularly, as observed earlier, at the cost of repetition, when part loan transaction from the same person is admitted to be genuine. Thus, in regard to the ground raised, the findings of the ld. CIT(A) cannot be sustained. Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1291
Revision u/s 263 - interest income earned on long term fixed deposits with banks - revision on the ground that the same is taxable u/Section 56 as 'income from other sources' and not deductible u/s 80P - HELD THAT:- We find the assessee to be correct in contending that as available from the record, the AO had duly applied his mind to the issue of the assessee's claim of deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act and he had only thereafter allowed it while passing the Assessment Order; and that therefore, PCIT has erred in invoking powers under section 263 of the Act and setting aside the Assessment Order. This grievance of the assessee society is accepted.
Deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) - In 'Shiksha Vibhag Karmacharigan Sahakari Samiti Limited, Kota [2019 (6) TMI 1703 - ITAT JAIPUR] following the decision of 'Shree Keshorai Patan Sahakari Sugar Mill, Bundi [2018 (2) TMI 499 - ITAT JAIPUR] decided the issue in favour of the assessee and allowed the deduction under section 80P/80P(2)(d) in respect of interest earned on deposits made with the banks/cooperative banks.
In 'Shahpura Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Limited, Shahpura [2020 (10) TMI 715 - ITAT JAIPUR] held that a cooperative bank would be considered as a cooperative society for the purposes of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act; and that accordingly, in view of the fact that the Jaipur Central Cooperative Bank is a cooperative society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, interest received by the assessee from the said Cooperative Bank is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.
Thus the assessee society, being a cooperative society, is entitled to the exemption claimed under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, in respect of income by way of interest derived by it from its investments with the cooperative banks.
Accordingly, the revisionary order passed by the learned Principle Commissioner of Income Tax is set aside and cancelled and the assessment order is revived. - Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
9911796707
