|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 1719 Records
-
2020 (1) TMI 1443
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - as argued No sufficient time to the assessee for presenting his case before the Assessing Officer - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the assessment order, we find that the Assessing Officer himself noted that the show cause notice was received by the assessee on 03.12.2018 towards posting the case for hearing on 07.12.2018, which clearly indicates that the Assessing Officer has not given sufficient time to the assessee for presenting his case before the Assessing Officer.
The assessee has submitted that the assessee has challenged the legal issue of reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act and without giving sufficient opportunities of being heard to the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by reproducing the assessment order in the appellate order without adjudicating the issue on merits. Under these circumstances, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the matter afresh by affording reasonable opportunities of being heard to the assessee.
Once the appeal filed by the assessee has been remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2020 (1) TMI 1442
Validity of reopening u/s.147 - Addition of bogus bill in the name of M/s. Vee Gee Industrial Enterprises - information was received from the office of ADIT (Inv.)-II, Faridabad along with bank statement of the assessee wherein assessee-company had issued a cheque in favour of M/s. Vee Gee Industrial Enterprises as mainly engaged in large value credits from the business and individuals in other banks followed by immediate cash withdrawal - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of the reasons recorded, we find that the Investigation Wing during the course of inquiry has found that assessee has issued a cheque in favour of M/s. Vee Gee Industrial Enterprises and said entity was not found to carry out any business nor any statutory payment like VAT/Excise Duty, etc. was paid which was statutory requirement for a person or entity carrying out such a trade - there is no freight payment also. Since in the inquiry, specific cheque number and account was found which is tallying with the assessee’s bank account then there is a prima facie reason to believe that transaction is not genuine and such a material is sufficient to clothe the Assessing Officer to acquire jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. AO at the stage of recording the reasons and issuance of notice need not need to establish fact. Thus, the finding of the Ld. CIT (A) upholding the validity of reopening u/s.147 is upheld.
Bogus purchases - AO had issued summons u/s.131 to the proprietor of the said entity from whom assessee has made purchases, but that remained uncomplied with nor assessee could produce the party. However, on the other hand, the sources of purchase have gone from the books of the assessee and there is a corresponding sale. In such a situation at the most even if assessee has made bogus purchases through cheque from the sources disclosed in the books of account and thereafter has taken accommodation entry and has received the cash back, then the same goods must have purchased from the grey market in cash, Since sales and purchase quantity wise details in the trading account has not been disturbed then at the most it could be a case of suppression of gross profit. Under these circumstances, we hold that addition on account of enhancement GP on the said purchase would be reasonable. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to apply 8% GP on the alleged bogus purchases - Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2020 (1) TMI 1441
Deduction under Section 10(38) - long term capital gains arising out of sale of shares - HELD THAT:- The assessee made investments in the shares of M/s. Esaar (India) Ltd. From the order of the CIT(Appeals) it appears that the assessee sold 170000 shares of M/s. Esaar (India) Ltd., and on sale of these shares, the assessee disclosed long term capital gains to the extent of ₹53,66,918/- This was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the company in which the assessee invested is a penny stock company.
It is not brought on record how the assessee is involved in promoting the penny stock company and how the assessee involved in inflating the shares of the company. Moreover, the copy of the investigation report said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata was not furnished to the assessee. On identical circumstances, this Tribunal in the case of Kanhaiyalal & Sons (HUF) [2019 (2) TMI 1640 - ITAT CHENNAI] has remitted back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.
In view of the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the issue raised by the assessee with regard to deduction under Section 10(38) of the Act is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2020 (1) TMI 1440
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - application filed by BSE - notice of service of dispute - HELD THAT:- The Corporate Debtor has neither appeared in the matter nor replied to the application and the matter was proceeded exparte on 19.09.2019 - The Applicant has filed an affidavit under section 9(3)(b) affirming that no notice of dispute has been given by the Corporate debtor relating to dispute of the unpaid operational debt.
The Applicant has filed the bank certificate of HDFC Bank dated 23.01.2019 as required u/s. 9(3)(c) of I&B Code, affirming that in respect of the amount claimed or any part thereof, the Applicant has not received nor had any person, on its behalf had received in any manner the amount due to them - The application is complete as per the requirements of section 9 of the code. The invoice was raised on 01.04.2017 and the application is filed on 14.08.2019 which is within the period of limitation - The registered office of corporate debtor is situated in Delhi and therefore this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and try this application.
The present application is complete and perusing the documents on records it goes beyond doubt that the Applicant is entitled to claim its dues, establishing the default in payment of the operational debt, which has remined uncontroverted which amounts to passive admission - Application admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2020 (1) TMI 1439
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - default regarding interest and applicable taxes towards the Annual Listing Fees - application filed by BSE Limited (Operational Creditor) - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- Since the application filed by the Applicant fulfilled all the conditions required under Section 9 of the Code, this Tribunal ordered issue of notice to the Respondent by all modes. However, the Applicant during the hearing on 24.09.2019 has contended that the affidavit of service has been filed and also e-service has been made, No one has represented on behalf of the Respondent. However, despite service of notice by all modes, none appeared on behalf of the Respondent and as a result the Respondent was proceeded ex-parte on 24.09.2019 - The Respondent was absent even on the hearing on 17.12.2019 and was set ex-parte. The Applicant has established the existence of debt and default on the part of the Respondent and the Respondent has not availed the opportunities provided by this Tribunal to defend the arguments made by the Applicant. In view of the above situation, this Tribunal admits this petition and initiates CIRP on the Respondent with immediate effect.
Application admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2020 (1) TMI 1438
Validity of assessment order - time limitation - notices for audit assessments in relation to such returns were issued, however, no final orders of assessment were passed before the period of limitation prescribed under the Act - HELD THAT:- In similar circumstances in the case of SHRI PANKAJ BEHARI SAHA VERSUS THE STATE OF TRIPURA, THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA, [2020 (1) TMI 892 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT] where it was held that respondent authorities cannot be allowed to circumvent the limitation provision for completing audit assessment by permitting resort to the powers of summary adjustments under Section 27 which are peculiar in nature and are available only in case where notice under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act has been issued to a dealer.
The impugned notices and consequential orders are set aside. Demand notices subsequent to such orders should also stand invalidated - petition allowed.
-
2020 (1) TMI 1437
Crime - sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations or not - Sections 417, 419 and 420 of IPC - HELD THAT:- Prima facie cognizable offences is made out at this stage against the petitioner, therefore, there are no cogent reason to quash the first information report. The prayer for quashing the first information report is refused.
It is directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., subject to the restraint that he shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear as and when called upon to assist in the investigation - Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (1) TMI 1436
Extension of Mining Lease - Jurisdiction - power of NCLT to entertain an application against the Government of Karnataka for a direction to execute Supplemental Lease Deeds for the extension of the mining lease - HELD THAT:- Issue decided in the case of M/S EMBASSY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS [2019 (12) TMI 188 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that though NCLT and NCLAT would have jurisdiction to enquire into questions of fraud, they would not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputes such as those arising under MMDR Act, 1957 and the rules issued thereunder, especially when the disputes revolve around decisions of statutory or quasi-judicial authorities, which can be corrected only by way of judicial review of administrative action. Hence, the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition.
Petition allowed.
-
2020 (1) TMI 1435
Scope of Limited scrutiny - cash deposit in bank and cash in hand shown in the return of income - no approval from CIT/Pr. CIT - Whether disallowance under section 43B of the IT Act, 1961 for non-payment of VAT is not within the scope of limited scrutiny? - HELD THAT:- Even if some other issue comes to the notice of the AO, he cannot make any other addition / disallowance without obtaining prior approval from concerned CIT/Pr. CIT. - in the absence of such approval from the CIT/PCIT, even the voluntary offer of the assessee also cannot give the AO jurisdiction to make any other addition although such offer by the assessee can be a basis for the AO to seek approval of CIT/PCIT .
On this aspect, argument was made before the learned CIT(A) also but in para 5 of his order, he has not decided this aspect. He has simply stated in this para that submission was made before him on the technical issue and the case was selected for scrutiny assessment under the CASS system of selection “limited type” and no prior approval was taken from the higher authorities, have been considered and found that the AO has rightly examined as to whether the cash deposit has been made from disclosed sources and whether cash in hand shown in the return of income is correct for which purpose the case was selected for scrutiny. But after observing so, he has not given any finding as to how the other addition made by the AO under section 43B of the IT Act, 1961 is justified under these facts. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (1) TMI 1434
The petitioner challenged notices dated 12.12.2019 under Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The High Court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner three weeks to offer an explanation. No coercive action can be taken until the explanation is considered. All contentions of the parties are kept open.
-
2020 (1) TMI 1433
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - HELD THAT:- Transfer pricing study shows that assessee provides software development services and IT enabled services as a captive service provider. It has been recorded that assessee undertakes software development and sales as an enterprise providing services to the third-party customer located domestically. It has been submitted in TP study that operations of assessee can be broken down under 2 categories viz; export and domestic service segment. Under the export services development Centre performs contract software development for the group companies on several financial software products and is compensated on a cost plus markup basis. The group company has the required infrastructure with skilled resources in all areas of project management and development, resources with specialised skills to meet the project needs are recruited locally by assessee on a case to case basis.
Companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list.
Persistent Systems and Solutions Ltd company earned income from sale of software services and products and no segmental details are available in respect of the same. It is also observed that income generated under both these segments cumulatively amounts to tune of ₹ 6.67 crores and in schedule 11, entire revenue has been shown under one segment. It is also observed that this company is rendering software development services and licensing, and earns royalty of software products. Therefore in our considered opinion, in the absence of segmental details we cannot appreciate the view taken by authorities below.
Sasken Communications Technologies Ltd - We are unable to appreciate arguments advanced by Ld.AR regarding segmental details not available. Further it is observed that Ld.TPO considered the consolidated figure appearing in profit and loss account, instead of considering segmental profits from software services of this company. We therefore set aside this comparable to Ld.AO/TPO to verify relevant observations recorded herein above and to recompute margins of this comparable.
LGS global Ltd & FCS software solutions Ltd - As observed that in case of Finestra software solutions (India) Pvt Ltd [2018 (5) TMI 1808 - ITAT BANGALORE]it has been observed that both these companies have been held functionally similar with captive service provider like assessee. However since working capital adjustments are not provided these comparables have been held to be not included in the finalist. We do not subscribe to such observations of Ld. TPO/DRP.
ITES segment - Accentia technologies Ltd - Though this company was into medical transcription and other services. It can neither be held to be a high-end activity, nor can be held to be low-end services. However it is observed that this company had undergone acquisition, which is an extraordinary event and can impact profits for year under consideration. Under such circumstances we are of the opinion that this company cannot be considered to be comparable with that of assessee for the year under consideration.
ICRA Online Ltd - This Tribunal in case of Swiss Re Shared services (India) Pvt.Ltd [2016 (7) TMI 1359 - ITAT BANGALORE] and M/s Zyme Solutions Pvt.Ltd [2019 (6) TMI 1397 - ITAT BANGALOREremanded this company for fresh consideration to Ld. AO/TPO. Following the same, we also direct this company to be setaside to Ld.AO/TPO for fresh consideration of comparability the lines indicated in these cases.
Working capital adjustment being restricted at 1.63% - As noted that working capital adjustment has been restricted by Ld.TPO and upheld by DRP at 1.63% which is contrary to provisions of transfer pricing rules. As held by various decisions of coordinate benches of this Tribunal, we direct Ld.TPO to recompute working capital adjustment in actual, and to consider the same for purposes of computing arm’s length margin as per the view expressed by this Tribunal in case of Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd [2018 (10) TMI 1796 - ITAT BANGALORE]
Risk adjustment on ad hoc basis at 1% - As observed that there is no scientific manner which has been applied by DRP. Assessee is a low risk bearing company for ITES segment and bears certain amount of entrepreneurial risk under SWD segment. Therefore while computing risk adjustment risks assumed by the comparables for earning revenue under particular segment needs to be analysed. Assessee is directed to provide for necessary details in respect of all the comparables finally selected. If that information is insufficient, it is beyond the power of Assessee to produce correct information about comparable companies. Revenue on the other hand has sufficient powers u/s.133(6) to compel production of required details from comparable companies. If this power is not exercised to find to get information required, then it is no defense to say that Assessee has not furnished required details to deny any adjustment on account of working capital/risk differences. Ld.AO/TPO shall then compute risk as adjustment in accordance with law.
International transaction or not - loss suffered by the assessee by allowing excess period of credit to the associated enterprises without charging an interest during such credit period - HELD THAT:- As decided in INSTRUMENTARIUM CORPORATION LIMITED,[2016 (7) TMI 760 - ITAT KOLKATA] Outstanding sum of invoices is akin to loan advanced by assessee to foreign AE., hence it is an international transaction as per explanation to section 92 B - In our considered opinion, these are factually distinguishable and thus, we reject argument advanced by Ld.AR.
Alternatively, it has been argued that working capital adjustment subsumes sundry creditors. In such situation computing interest on outstanding receivables and lones and advances to international transaction would amount to double taxation. Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in case of Orange Business Services India Solutions Pvt. Ltd [2018 (2) TMI 1151 - ITAT DELHI] as held there are several factors which need to be considered before holding that every receivable is an international transaction and it requires an assessment on the working capital of the assessee.
In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order on this issue and remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer/TPO for deciding it in conformity with the above referred judgment. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of being heard in such fresh proceedings.
Computation of deduction u/s 10A/AA - excluding expenses incurred in foreign currency from export turnover while computing deduction - HELD THAT:- DRP while considering the issue referred to view of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Tata Elxsi Ltd vs CIT [2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], directed Ld.AO to follow the view taken therein, while computing deduction under section 10 A of the Act. No infirmity in such directions. Ld.AO to recompute export turnover in the light of ratio laid down by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Tata Elxsi Ltd vs CIT (supra).
Allowable revenue expenses u/s 37 - expenses towards purchase of licenses for computer software used primarily as application software for various projects undertaken - HELD THAT:- It is observed that DRP following the view taken by this Tribunal in preceding years in assessee’s own case held the expenditure to be allowable in the hands of assessee. It has been submitted by Ld.AR that this view is supported by another decision of coordinate benches of this Tribunal in case of IBM India Pvt.Ltd. [2006 (3) TMI 196 - ITAT BANGALORE-B] and Amway India Enterprises [2008 (2) TMI 454 - ITAT DELHI-C]- Respectfully following the same, we direct Ld.AO to grant deduction claimed by assessee under section 37 of the Act.
Exclusion of comparables on turnover filter by DRP - HELD THAT:- Comparables selected are into different verticals and functional lines, though assessee is catering to software development and maintenance needs of the group and has been characterized as captive software development service provider.
In facts of present case, assessee is doing part of software development cycle under the guidance of its AE’s and therefore has been categorised as a captive software development service provider catering to needs of the group. Assessee in TP study held to be comprise of Software Engineers, who develop project based on inputs received from AE. Engineers employed by assessee designs functional specifications for the project identification of interfaces components coding and bug fixing. Ultimate approval and owner of project developed is the AE. In our view, by involving itself in process of Software development for AE, assessee cannot be held to be fulfledged Software Development Company. One has to look into transaction in regards to services rendered and FAR, which catagorises it to be a captive service provider, working on business model of cost plus margin.
We have perused view of co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of Mercedes-Benz research and development India private limited [2018 (2) TMI 1975 - ITAT BANGALORE] in respect of Accropatel Technologies Ltd and L&T Infotech Ltd. It is observed that these comparables were sent back to Ld.TPO.
For the reason that DRP there in noted the comparables having segmental details which was opposed by assessee. We have perused annual reports of these comparables in detail and are of opinion that segmental informations are not available. We therefore do not find force in argument raised by Ld.CIT DR.
Exclusion of Infosys BPO from the list of comparable companies chosen by the TPO as this company is functionally not comparable with captive service provider and hence deservs to be excluded.
No infirmity in exclusion of these comparables for high turnover. However we have analysed the alledged comparable to be functionallt not comparable with that of assessee.
Accordingly we direct Ld.AO/TPO to exclude, Acropetal Technologies Ltd, eZest Solutions Ltd., E-Infochips Ltd, Evoke Tech Pvt.Ltd, ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd, Larsen and Toubro Infotech Ltd, Persistent Systems and Solutions Ltd., in SWD segment. And Infosys BPO Ltd., Mindtree Ltd, iGate Global Soutions Ltd., in ITES Segment.
RS software (India) Ltd has been excluded by DRP for high turnover. However we find that turnover of this company is less than 200 crores. Ld.AR did not object this comparable to be included and no submissions has been advanced for its exclusion.Under such circumstances, we direct Ld.AO/TPO to include this comparable in the final list.
-
2020 (1) TMI 1432
Exemption u/s 11 - grant of registration u/s 12AA - whether the donation collected has been utilized for the purpose of construction of temple specifically and as to whether the assessee has been doing any other activity against the aims and objects of the society and as to whether there is any receipt in the hands of the society in the nature of income? - HELD THAT:- As the amount of donation has been spent towards the construction of temple for achieving the aims and objects of the society, therefore the addition qua donations is unsustainable - Assessee further claimed that the Revenue department would have sought the clarification from the appellant society to the effect as to whether the donation collected has been utilized for the purpose of construction of temple specifically and as to whether the assessee has been doing any other activity against the aims and objects of the society and as to whether there is any receipt in the hands of the society in the nature of income.
Authorities below failed to exercise on the aforesaid situations and passed the order on conjectures and surmises and hence in the interest of justice we are inclined to partly set aside orders passed by the authorities below and to remand back the issue qua addition to the file of the AO for decision afresh while taking into consideration the amount received by the assessee and its utilization as to whether the same and upto what extent has been utilized by the assessee for the construction of temple and/for achieving the aims and objects of the society.
Whether the assessee has earned any income in its hand. Further as to whether the society has changed its aims and objects at any point of time at the time of filing the return for the relevant AY 2014-15 and before declining and grant of registration u/s 12AA of the Act. If the AO will find that the amount of donation has been spent for the construction of temple, then the Assessee shall be entitled to claim the amount to that extent as capital receipts in nature. Consequently the issue qua addition is remanded to the file of the assessing Officer for decision afresh on the basis of observations and analyzations made above and in the light of decision of tribunal in the case of Income Tax Officer, Dharamshala v. Chime Gatsal Ling Monastery [2014 (10) TMI 1033 - ITAT, CHANDIGARH] - Appeal filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2020 (1) TMI 1431
Supply of services - Deposit Work undertaken - ancillary or incidental to the principal supply of transmission services or not - composite supply of services - applicability of exemption given to transmission or distribution of electricity by an electricity transmission or distribution utility - eligibility of ITC.
HELD THAT:- The Supply of Electricity is a continuous supply while the other service required for development of transmission facilities, supervision charges etc. are not continuous supplies. Supply of electricity can also be made without provisions of these services. These services are provided by the appellant on specific request of the customers and not provided in its normal course of business to all the consumers - For a supply to be consider as a composite supply, its constituent supplies should be so integrated with each other that one cannot be supplied in the ordinary course of business without or independent of the other. In other words they are naturally bundled. The concept of the “Naturally Bundled”, used in Section 2 (30) of the CGST Act 2017, lays emphasis on the fact that the different element in a composite supply are integral to the overall supply and if one of the element is removed the nature of supply will be affected.
“Deposit Work” undertaken by appellant is not an integral part of supply of services of transmission or distribution of electricity and exemption given under Entry No. 25 of the exemption notification for services by way of transmission or distribution of electricity by an electricity transmission or distribution utility will not be applicable on applicant - the works regarding extension of electric line, electric plant, commissioning of new sub- station etc. are part and parcel of the activity of “Transmission of Electricity”.
The deposit work undertaken by the appellant is part and parcel of the transmission and distribution of electricity and the same cannot be completed without the said deposit work - the service provided by the appellant are in nature of composite supply in terms of Section 8 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Transmission and distribution of electricity being the principal supply.
-
2020 (1) TMI 1430
Input Tax credit - expenses incurred by the Company in order to comply with requirements of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) under the Companies Act, 2013 - incurred in the course of business or not - Section 16 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - restriction on free supply of goods as a part of CSR activities u/s 17 (5) (h) of CGST Act, 2017 - Restriction on goods and services used for construction of school building which is not capitalized, u/s 17 (5) (c) / 17 (5) (d) of CGST Act, 2017.
CSR activities - HELD THAT:- The applicant is compulsorily required to undertake CSR activities in order to run its business and accordingly, it becomes an essential part of his business process as a whole. Therefore the said CSR activities are to be treated as incurred “in the course of business”.
Free supply of goods as a part of CSR activities - restricted under Section 17 (5) (h) of CGST Act, 2017 or not - HELD THAT:- The section restricted credit of the goods which were written off or disposed off by way of gift or free samples. Now the moot question before us is to decide whether the furniture / fittings such as tables, chairs etc. and electrical goods supplied by the applicant are to be treated as gift or not. The term “Gift' has not been defined under the CGST Act, 2017, however in common parlance gift is provided to someone occasionally, without consideration and which is voluntary in nature - a clear distinction needs to be drawn between goods given as 'gift' and those provided / supplied as a part of CSR activities. While the former is voluntary and occasional, the later is obligatory and regular in nature. CSR expenses incurred by the applicant have been mandated under the Companies Act, 2013. It is the applicant's obligation to incur such expenses in order to be in compliant with the law. Since CSR expenses are not incurred voluntarily, accordingly, they do not qualify as 'gifts' and therefore its credit is not restricted under Section 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017.
Goods and services used for construction of school building which is not capitalized - restriction u/s (5) (c) / 17 (5) (d) of CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Section 17 (5) (c) & (d) of the CGST Act, 2017 has specifically restricted the ITC on construction / work contract service to the extent of capitalisation - the ITC of goods and services used for construction of school building will not be available to the applicant to the extent of capitalisation.
-
2020 (1) TMI 1429
Government Entity or not - Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Limited - applicability of Notification No. 31/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 13 October 2017 - whether the applicant is either set up by an act of Parliament or state legislature, or, established by any Government - HELD THAT:- In terms of provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (which provides for the establishment of State Transmission Utility by State Government) the applicant was formed by virtue of a transfer scheme introduced through Notification Number dated 3rd November, 2015 - M/S UPPTCL was established by the Government of Uttar Pradesh.
Holding of 90 percent or more equity or control - HELD THAT:- Out of the total share of M/s. UPPTCL, 83.72% shares are held by the Government of Uttar Pradesh and remaining 16.28 % are held by M/s. UPPCL (a company in which 100% shares are held by the Government of Uttar Pradesh). The Notification No. 11/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 (as amended) envisages an entity as “Government Entity” wherein 90 per cent or more participation by way of equity or control is held by the Government - In the instant case, direct equity held by the Government in M/s. UPPTCL is 83.72% and remaining 16.28 % is held indirectly by the Government through a company in which 100% equity is held by the Government. Another situation envisaged by the Notification No. 11/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 (as amended) is the “control” held by the Government - the applicant fulfills the condition “established by any Government with 90 percent or more participation by way of equity or control” as given in the Notification No. 11/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 (as amended).
The applicant is covered under the definition of the term 'Government Entity' in terms of Notification No. 11/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017, as amended by Notification No. 31/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 13th October 2017.
-
2020 (1) TMI 1428
Activity in relation to function entrusted to Panchayat or Municipality under Article 243G or Article 243W respectively, of the Constitution of India or not - Project Development Service (i.e. Detailed Project Report Service) and Project Management Consultancy services (PMCS) provided by the applicant to recipient under the Contract for SUDA - Project Management Consultancy services (PMC) under the contract for PMAY - pure services or not - exemption as provided in serial number 3 of Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28 June, 2017, as amended (S. No. 3A) by Notification No. 2/2018- Central Tax (Rate) dated 25 January, 2018 - HELD THAT:- The Consultancy services rendered by the applicant under the contract with State Urban Development Agency, Uttar Pradesh (SUDA), and for PMAY are in relation to functions entrusted to Municipalities under Article 243W and to Panchayats under Article 243G of the Constitution of India.
Pure services or not - exemption as provided in serial number 3 of Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28 June, 2017, as amended (S. No. 3A) by Notification No. 2/2018- Central Tax (Rate) dated 25 January, 2018 - HELD THAT:- The services mentioned in the contract would qualify as Pure Service (excluding works contract service or other composite supplies involving supply of any goods)” as provided in serial number 3 of Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28 June, 2017, as amended (S. No. 3A) by Notification No. 2/2018- Central Tax (Rate) dated 25 January, 2018 issued under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST) and corresponding Notifications No.- KA.N.I.-2-843/X1- 9 (47) / 17-UP. Act-1 - 2017 - Order - (10) – 2017 Lucknow, dated June 30, 2017 issued under Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (UPGST Act), where the Project cost includes the cost of service rendered along with reimbursement of cost of procurement of goods for rendering such service, and, thus, be eligible for exemption from levy of CGST and UPGST, respectively.
-
2020 (1) TMI 1427
Maintainability of Advance Ruling application - Classification of goods - rate of GST - Job work of printing and colouring of Textile fabrics provided by manufacturer of textile fabric - applicability of N/N. 11/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - HELD THAT:- The question asked by the applicant before the advance ruling authority has already been decided by the jurisdictional authority. Further, vide aforesaid letter dated 03.01.2020, the jurisdictional SGST authority has informed that the applicant has not preferred an appeal against the said refund rejection order.
The application shall not be admitted in terms of the provisions of Section 98(2) of CGST Act, 2017, as the question raised in the application has already been decided by the SGST authorities, Sikandrabad.
-
2020 (1) TMI 1426
Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - amounts received as share application by companies from companies in both of which the assessee has beneficial interest - whether is not loans and advances for the purposes of invoking section 2(22)(e)? - HC held what was received was share allotment money and, therefore, could not be considered to be a loan and/or advance - HELD THAT:- As petitioner, on instructions, issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance vide F. No.390/Misc./116/2017-JC dated 22.08.2019, seeks permission to withdraw this Special Leave Petition along with pending applications therein due to low tax effect.
Permission granted, subject to just exceptions.
The special leave petition and pending applications are dismissed as withdrawn, leaving question of law open.
-
2020 (1) TMI 1425
Imposition of Anti-dumping duty - enhancement of assessable value - change in classification of imported goods - trapezoidal roof profiles - primary claim on behalf of the appellants is that the imported goods are not ‘flat rolled products of iron or steel’ as the leeway of ‘corrugation’, afforded by note 1(k) in chapter 72 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975, cannot be said to include ‘trapezoidal’ profile - differential rate of duty - applicability of N/N. 2/2017-Cus (ADD) dated 11th January 2017.
HELD THAT:- Appeal admitted.
-
2020 (1) TMI 1424
Maintainability of petition - permission for withdrawal of petition - exclusion the period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - HELD THAT:- Section 14 of the Limitation Act relates to exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction, but it relates to period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff had been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding. The other provision of Section 14 of the Limitation Act cannot be made applicable in this Appeal preferred under Section 61 of the I&B Code - If we apply the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, this Appellate Tribunal has the power to admit an Appeal after the prescribed period, if the Appellant satisfies this Appellate Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the Appeal within such period - Section 238 of the Code makes it clear that the provision of the Code will override other laws. Therefore, Section 61(2) will override Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
As the Appeal is filed after 30 days and beyond 15 days thereafter, i.e., after 45 days of the date of the receipt/ knowledge of the order, there are no jurisdiction to entertain the Appeal.
Appeal disposed off.
............
|
9911796707
