|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 2855 Records
-
2015 (10) TMI 2583
Eligibility to deduction u/s.80P - whether assessee was eligible for deduction u/s.80P(2)(a) or 80P(2)(d) of the Act, on the interest received by it? - Held that:- What we find is that in case the interest was received from surplus invested by the assessee in short-term FDs or Savings Bank account of other banks, then the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tumkur Merchants’ Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd [2015 (2) TMI 995 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] would come to its aid. However, if the money deposited was amounts lent to the assessee by its members, or due by the assessee to its members then such deduction may not be automatic. We are therefore of the opinion that the issue requires a fresh look by the AO. We set aside the orders of authorities below and remit the issue back to the file of the AO for consideration afresh in accordance with law. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purpose..
-
2015 (10) TMI 2582
Bail in connection with PMLA Case - conditional release - Held that:- The application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) with two local sureties of ₹ 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;
[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
[b] not act in a manner injuries to the interest of the prosecution;
[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;
[d] not leave the State of Gujarat and union territory of Delhi without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;
[e] mark presence with the respondent No.1 every Monday for a period of three months and thereafter on any day of the first week of each English Calendar month for a period of one year;
[f] furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;
The Authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law. At the trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage, made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2581
Restricting the disallowance made u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D - Held that:- It is seen that the predecessor has directed the AO to consider net interest paid for disallowance u/s 14A. Following the predecessor’s order as mentioned in preceding para, the AO is directed to consider only net interest paid for working disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. This ground of appeal is, thus, partly allowed.
Addition on account of penalty paid to stock exchange - Held that:- The penalties / fine paid to BSE, NSE are on account of non-collection of margin charge, procedure failure to follow bye-laws, rules/ regulations of the Stock Exchange. These expenses are in the nature of payments towards violating the prescribed Rules/ Regulations, short/ partial collection of margins, non-maintenance of complete records, delay in payments of funds and securities, incomplete KYC forms, etc. which are main breach of contractual liability and non-adherence to proper procedure laid down by the Stock Exchanges, and are not for any infringement or infraction of any statutory law, and therefore, are not hit by Explanation to sec.37(1) of the Act. Further, BSE & NSE are not statutory bodies and hence, fines and penalties levied by BSE & NSE cannot be equated with statutory Rule or Law. Since, the facts and circumstances of this year are similar to that of AY 2009-10, I have no reason to differ with view taken by my predecessor. Hence, the penalty disallowed by the AO is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed.
Addition in respect of notional loss open position in the F & O - Held that:- In find from the P & L A/c that the appellant had already credited the amount of ₹ 9,593/- to the P & L account. Thus, by adding the same amount again in the computation of income, the AO has taxed twice the same amount, I, therefore, direct the AO to delete this addition on account of F & O transaction.
Addition in respect of expenses at club - Held that:- The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT(A) vs. Nestle India reported by (2007 (4) TMI 180 - DELHI HIGH COURT) held that (Even though there was no specific finding that the payment was made by the assessee for improving its business there was an implicit acknowledgement that expenses incurred by the assessee were for business purposes. The assessee was entitled to deduction as claimed). Hence the addition made on account of club expenses which was deleted by ld. CIT(A) is also does not require any interference and the same is reasoned one.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2580
Judicial custody of Petitioners happen to be the father-in-law and mother-in-law of Jagdish Singh @ Bhola who is alleged to be the kingpin of drug mafia - Money Laundering - Held that:- We are satisfied that no purpose shall be served by putting the petitioners in judicial custody pending trial in the Statutory Complaint. We say for the reasons that:
(i) It is an admitted fact that during investigation of the money laundering case, the petitioners were never arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in exercise of its powers under Section 19 of the Act;
(ii) The assets created by the petitioners with the alleged aid of proceeds of crime have already been seized/attached;
(iii) It is not the case of Enforcement Directorate that any private vulnerable witness is to depose against them. It would, thus, be too much presumptuous at this stage that the petitioners would tamper with the evidence;
(iv) The maximum sentence for an offence under the Act is 7 years though it may extend to 10 years if the case falls under proviso to Section 4 of the Act;
(v) It further appears that rigors of Section 45(1)(ii) of the Act would be attracted only while considering the bail plea of an accused who has been arrested by the E.D. Under Section 19 of the Act;
(vi) The complaint is at the initial stage and its adjudication will take time.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2579
Bail application - nature of offence - Prevention of Money Laundering - Held that:- As far as the allegations levelled against the present applicant are concerned, I have gone through the statement of the applicant himself. It appears that he was assisting his brother who was dealing with the cricket betting though he might be deciding or circulating the bhav (rate). The investigation is almost over and on completion of investigation, the present complaint has been filed by the authority. I have also considered the fact that the maximum punishment is of 7 years and, therefore, the case of the applicant can be considered by imposing certain conditions.
The application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail registered at the instance of the respondent No.2, on executing a bond of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) with two local sureties of ₹ 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;
[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
[b] not act in a manner injuries to the interest of the prosecution;
[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;
[d] not leave State of Gujarat and Union territory of Delhi without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;
[e] mark presence with the respondent No.2 every Monday for a period of three months and thereafter on any day of the first week of each English Calendar month for a period of one year;
[f] furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;
The Authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law. At the trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage, made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2578
Provision for transit breakages - whether was not contingent in nature or based on a scientific basis and as such was not an allowable deduction while computing the total income? - Held that:- In In view of the judgment passed in Seagram Distilleries Pvt. Ltd case [ 2015 (10) TMI 491 - DELHI HIGH COURT] there is no reasonable scientific method adopted by the Assessees to estimate the transit breakages so as to justify creating of provision for such breakages.
The provision would, in the circumstances, be a provision for a contingent liability and, therefore, in terms of the AS 29 ought not be recognised.
The actual transit breakages as and when they occur are allowable as revenue expenditure in the accounting year in which such breakages occur. Question framed is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessees.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2577
Refund in relation to surplus sum - differential amounting between ₹ 1.75 crores alleged unaccounted income reduced by the actual sum declared of ₹ 27 lacs - Held that:- Revenue has failed to produce any material evidence supporting the impugned addition amount of ₹ 1.48 crores added merely on the basis of a very much vague and conditional disclosure statement of Shri Patel which stands retracted later on. We hold in these facts the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) have erred in making the above stated additions in assessee’s as its unaccounted income. The same stands deleted. Other arguments narrated in preceding paragraphs have been rendered infructuous
Penalty u/s 271AAA - Held that:- There is no dispute that this penalty sum of ₹ 14.80 lacs relates to addition of ₹ 1.48 crores made in the course of quantum proceedings as deleted in assessee’s appeal. That being the case, we hold that the impugned penalty has no legs to stand.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2576
Transfer pricing adjustment - comparable selection - Held that:- Considering the judicial precedent in assessee’s own case the Ld. CIT DR stated that as far as the calculations are concerned the issue has to be verified by the TPO and in the face of the order of the Co-ordinate Bench as the issue has to go back it was submitted that he would have no objection if the calculations as considered by the TPO are taken on record and the departmental ground is allowed. The Ld. AR in reply submitted the let the TPO consider both the calculations and he would have no objection.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record following the judicial precedent in the light of the submissions of the parties, we allow the departmental appeal as canvassed by the ld. CIT DR and not opposed by the Ld. AR and direct the TPO/AO to recompute the operating margins of the comparables retained by the TPO in line with the rates of depreciation charged by the assessee under the straight line method.
Applying the principle that only companies which are on similar standard can only be comparables Fortune Infotech Ltd. is excluded from the list of the comparables in view of the fact that it holds unique intangibles which position is not disputed by the Revenue.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2575
Addition u/s 69A - addition has been made mainly on the basis of “Parvez Sir” appearing on the loose paper bearing No. 4 & 5 and cash statement dated 18.11.2006 - Held that:- AO had made the addition only on surmise that the impounded papers bearing No. 4 & 5 were containing entries which are dated 11.11.2006 whereas the assessee retired from the firm on 15.11.2006. Assessee in his statement before the Assessing Officer has categorically denied that he is not “Parvez Sir” as mentioned in the impounded papers in respect of Alliance Hotel. Apart from the above, the Assessing Officer did not have any other ground for arriving at the conclusion that the entry “Parvez Sir” is referring to assessee. It is undisputed fact that Alliance Hotel had carried out reconstruction work which was subsequently turned out to be illegal and was demolished. This fact was further corroborated by the order of the Brihyan Mumbai Mahanagar Palika bearing No. ACA/180/MOHA/ di. 19.03.2009, clearing mentioned that the said firm had constructed unauthorized construction of mezzanine floor and additional room with attached toilet in Alliance Hotel, 3rd floor, Empire Building. The fact of reconstruction of Alliance Hotel was accepted by Shri Kasan Ghaswala, being Managing Partner of the firm. In view of this it is absolutely evident that the Assessing Officer has made the addition on conjuncture and surmises without concrete evidence in his possession.
The Assessing Officer of Alliance Hotel did not make any separate addition of ₹ 40,00,000/-. In fact in the aforesaid computer sheet did not add this amount to the total income of Alliance Hotel. This sum of ₹ 1.08 Crores included the sum of ₹ 4000,000/-, added by Assessing Officer of the assessee to the total income of the assessee. Thus, Assessing Officer of Alliance Hotel was of the opinion that over and above ₹ 2,62,40,000/-, no further addition of ₹ 40,00,000/- is required to be made. In view of our discussion coupled with the fact that provisions of section 69A has no application on the act of assessee’s case therefore, the addition of ₹ 40,00,000/- made by Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Act was rightly directed to be deleted. Accordingly, both the additions of ₹ 2,62,40,000/- plus ₹ 40,00,000/-, aggregating to ₹ 3,02,40,000/-, were rightly directed to be deleted. This reasoned findings of the CIT(A) need not any interference from our side.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2574
Validity of reassessment proceedings - Held that:- The assessee had furnished evidences, which have been thrown by the assessing officer without making any enquiry thereupon. We find that there is a vast difference between the cases, where there is substantial material to establish collusive arrangement and where the evidences furnished have been thrown without any enquiry.
Thus we find that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind independently for recording the reason that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. The record further reveals that identity of the creditors is not doubted and the evidences, mentioned above, furnished by assessee in support of share application money received by the assessee through banking channel have not been enquired into and commented upon by the authorities below to doubt the creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (10) TMI 2573
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - TDS on subscription to e-magazines - Held that:- It is not the case of the Revenue that specific queries raised by the respondent-assessee were answered to by M/s Bloomberg as a part of the consideration of ₹ 4.34 lakhs. The information is made available to all subscribers to e-magazines/journal of M/s Bloomberg. Therefore, in no way the payments made to M/s. Bloomberg can be considered to be in the nature of any consultative/professional services rendered by Bloomberg to the respondents. In any view of the matter, the findings reached by both authorities that payments made to M/s. Bloomberg was made for subscription to e-magazines and therefore, there is no occasion to deduct tax under the Act cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary.
Deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22) - Held that:- Issue arising herein stands covered against the Revenue and in favour of the respondent-assessee by the decision of this court in CIT v. Impact Containers P. Ltd [2014 (9) TMI 88 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] as deeming provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act cannot be applied to an assessee company as the assessee-company is not a shareholder of the company that advanced loan to the assessee-company even though there was a common shareholder holding substantial interest on both the companies
Appeal admitted on question 1
Whether Tribunal was justified in allowing depreciation on amount paid by the assessee-company to Ashmavir Financial Consultants being amount paid by the assessee- company for acquiring the clientele of the business of Ashmavir Financial Consultants even though such payment made by the asses see-company could not be considered as purchase of goodwill or any commercial right from the said Ashmavir Financial Consultants ?
-
2015 (10) TMI 2572
EDD - loading of royalty amount and lump sum amount relating to imported goods paid or payable to the foreign supplier at the end of every financial year to be added to the transaction value - Held that: - this is the case of SVB finalisation of related parties transaction where DC(SVB) has finalised the relationship and also loading of royalty and lump sum payments on the invoice value and directed the assessing group to finalise the assessment accordingly. The appellant preferred the present appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order. We do not see any merit in the appellant’s plea as the Department is yet to finalize the provisional assessment and quantifying the demand on account of SVB order and there is no document or evidence to show the objection raised in not clearing the live bill of entry provisionally on payment of EDD etc. Hence, the applicants are free to take up the matter with the assessing group for finalising the assessment as per the SVB order and if any demand confirmed, which becomes a separate issue. We also direct the lower appellate authority to consider the appellant’s requests on the assessment of live Bills of Entry if any provisionally on deposit of EDD pending finalization of assets - application disposed off.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2571
100% EOU - export of Pan Masala, Gutkha and Tobacco across the globe - production to be sold or released in the local market in India - exemption from operation of the Plastic Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules 2011 - Held that: - It is evident that a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution filed by Baba Global Ltd. has been finally disposed of by permitting the 100% export of Pan Masala, Gutkha and Tobacco in multilayered plastic sachet; and in Harsh International interim orders have been passed exempting the Writ Petitioner from the operation of the said 2011 Rules - Petitioner No. 1 shall be exempted from the operation of the Plastic Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011
During the pendency of the present proceedings, the Petitioner shall stand exempted from the operation of the 2011 Rules on the understanding that it shall strictly abide by all the terms contained in the Undertaking furnished by it in terms of its Affidavit dated 28th July, 2015
-
2015 (10) TMI 2570
Stay application - duty demand - appellant filed the present appeal contending that subsequent to the order of the Tribunal dated 21st April, 2014, the financial status of the appellant company has deteriorated and that it has become a sick industry and alternatively the appellant may be permitted to comply with the pre-deposit of the order of the Tribunal by utilizing the CENVAT credit that is availabl - Held that:- Upon considering, we find that even though these assertions were raised by the appellant in their written submissions, which has been treated by the Tribunal as a Misc. application, no consideration on these aspects have been indicated by the Tribunal in the impugned order.
We, accordingly, dispose of the appeal directing the appellant to make a fresh application bringing these facts before the Tribunal within four weeks from today. If such an application is filed for modification of the order of the Tribunal dated 21st April, 2014, the same shall be dealt with and appropriate orders would be passed within four weeks thereafter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2569
Assessment u/s 153A - Held that:- Factually speaking, in the present case the assessment for the year under consideration stood completed on the date of search. As perused the assessment order and find that there is nothing brought on record to suggest that any material was found during course of search in relation to the impugned addition. The entire discussion on this point in para-3 of the assessment order does not refer to any material found during the course of search leave alone any incriminating material. Therefore, in this factual background, no justification for the Assessing Officer to make the impugned addition in an assessment finalized under section 153A of the Act in the absence of incriminating material having not been found during the course of search, qua the impugned addition.
Thus set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made as the same is purported to be beyond the scope and ambit of assessment envisaged under section 153A of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (10) TMI 2568
CENVAT credit on capital goods - Rule 6(4), with effect from 01.3.2003 - Notification No.8/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 - Rule 57Q of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 - The first negative that is used in Rule 6(4) is that no CENVAT Credit shall be allowed on capital goods which are used exclusively in the manufacture of exempted goods. What follows the first part of the Rule 6(4) is the second negative, in the sense that the ineligibility to claim CENVAT Credit stipulated in the first part of Rule 6(4) is negatived or offset by what follows - What is clearly decipherable from the use of the expression "final product" and the definition of the expression "final product" is that the Rules do not make a distinction between a main product and a by-product - There is no dispute about the fact that these three products, namely soap stock, acid oil and wax were dutiable even on the date on which the appellant received the capital goods, namely April 2002 to March 2003 - to interpret Rule 4(2)(a) in a manner that will benefit a person, who receives the capital goods on the date, on which, the goods to be manufactured were dutiable, despite the same goods becoming exempted goods on the next day, but to deprive the benefit to a person, who manufactures dutiable goods on the basis of the capital goods received in a particular financial year, would not be a proper interpretation to the Rules - Decided in favor of the assessee.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2567
Addition in respect of purchase being amount debited to purchase account - Held that:- The amount being bad debts was required to be written off but inadvertently, the dealing clerk debited the amount to hide account to clear the debit balance instead of written off as bad debts. It was also contended by the CIT(A) that this position was explained to Assessing Officer but did not appreciate the same. The CIT(A) reexamined the claim of the assessee and having verified the fact that the excess payment of ₹ 58,343/- could not be recovered for earlier years or in the year under consideration, therefore, the same would be termed as trading loss. The mistake was made by the Clerk by debiting the same to hide purchase account instead of trading loss. The CIT(A) reexamined the claim of the assessee and having found the truth therein correctly accepted the claim and deleted the addition.
Addition on account of cash purchase of raw hide by applying the provision of Section 40A(3) - Held that:- As carefully examining the provision of Rule 6DD(e) of the Rules in which the payments for purchase of produces of animal husbandry ( including livestock, hides and skins) or doing or poultry forming are excluded from the clutches of payment in cash exceeding the specified limit. Therefore, we are of the view that since the payments were made for purchase of raw hides to the producer through the commission agent provision of Rule 40A(3) cannot be invoked as its falls within the exemption clause of Rules 6DD(e) of the Rule. 12. We, therefore, do not find any justification in the addition of ₹ 22,10,155/- made on account of purchases in cash by invoking in provision of Rule 40A(3) of the Act so far as the addition deleted by the CIT(A) are concerned, we find that the CIT(A) has mentioned in his order that the payments were made in cash on Sunday therefore, the same stands excluded as per Rule 6DD(j) of the Rule. We therefore, find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition
Sales effected to sister concern - difference in price - Held that:- In the light of the detailed explanation and was of the view whatever little difference in prices are there it has to be seen in the light of quantum of sale. The sale to M/s Popular was of very small quantity and that too single quality, whereas the sale to Treadstone is of much bigger quantity and also of varying qualities. Therefore one cannot compare to average rate of sale made to Treadstone with that of M/s Popular where only one quality in small lot was sold. AO made an addition having relied upon the observation of the special auditor in its report even without realizing that hides are not manufactured. Therefore, it is of different qualities and the rates of the hides depends upon the qualities. It is also fact that the hides are measured per diameter and different sizes of hides are of different rates, therefore, the rates of particular hides cannot be compared with other hide. We have carefully examined the order of the CIT(A) and we find that the CIT(A) has properly appreciated the facts of the case and adjudicated the issue in right perspective. Since no specific infirmity has been pointed out by the Ld. DR we confirm the order of the CIT(A).
Addition on account of excess consumption of chemical - Held that:- While adjudicating the issue, the CIT(A) took the cognizance of the report and restore the matter to the AO to determine the average cost of consumption of chemicals as per norms laid down by the institute. Undisputedly, the special auditor is not a technical expert, therefore, his observation cannot be made to be the sole basis for making addition. The Assessing Officer should have relied upon the report of the CLRI instead of following the report of the auditor.
Validity of assessment - assessee has contended that the assessment was not framed by the competent Officer as he has not issued a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act - Held that:- . Initially, the notice u/s 143(2) was issued within the prescribed period by Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the assessee. Therefore, it cannot be said that the notice u/s 143(2) was not issued upon the assessee within the prescribed period. It is also evidence from the assessment order that during the course of assessment proceeding, jurisdiction was transferred from one officer to other officer and the subsequent officer has completed the assessment. Under these circumstances, we find no merit in the contention of the assessee that every time new Officer should issue a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Whenever jurisdiction is transferred from one Officer to other Officer the subsequent officer shall continue with the proceeding from the stage left by the earlier officer. There is no requirement of law to issue a notice u/s 143(2) every time by the new Officer, we therefore, find no merit in the contention of the assessee and we accordingly reject the same.
Disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- We restore the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to verify the facts and if the recipient has paid the taxes on this receipt no disallowance be made in the hands of the assessee in this regard.
Disallowance of pre paid expenses - Held that:- The assessee has credited the pre paid expenses account and debited it to the Freight and Cartage inward account. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the accounting system. Since there is no loss to Revenue, we find no merit in the disallowance
Addition of bad debts - Held that:- It is not clear from the orders of lower authorities that requisite conditions of Section 36(2) are fulfilled are not for claiming a bad debts. Therefore, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to examine the claim of bad debts in the light of facts whether the assessee has fulfilled the requisite conditions of section 36(2) of the Act.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2566
Interest subsidy - nature of receipt - revenue or capital subsidy - repayment of loan acquired for acquisition of capital assets - Held that:- In the case of Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. [2008 (9) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT ] their lordship has held that the nature of subsidy is to be determined in respect of purpose for the subsidy is granted. The character of subsidy is to be determined with respect to subsidy is granted. In other words one has to apply the purpose test. The point of time as subsidy paid is not relevant. The source is immaterial if the object of the subsidy is to enable the assessee to run the business more profitably then the receipt is of revenue receipt. On the other hand, object of the assistance under the subsidy scheme is to enable the assessee to setup a new unit or to expend an existing unit then the receipt of the subsidy is a receipt in capital account. Their lordship has further held that after reversing the judgment of the High Court that main eligibility condition in the schemes was that the incentive had to be utilized for repayment of loans taken by the assessee to setup new units or for substantial expansion of an existing unit. Their lordship accordingly held that the subsidy received by the assessee was not in the course of trade but was of capital nature.
Carefully perused the orders of the Tribunal referred by the assessee and we find that in the case of ACIT Vs. Shree Cement Ltd [2011 (9) TMI 561 - ITAT JAIPUR] an identical fact that the interest subsidy was considered to be the capital subsidy. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid judgments, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly treated the interest subsidies as a capital receipt as it was received only for repayment of loan acquired for acquisition of capital assets. Accordingly, the Revenue fails on this issue.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2565
Cenvat credit - Penalty - Held that: - the disputed goods have been used by the appellant for repair, maintenance and fabrication of the machines/ machineries installed in the plant - From the purchase requisition slips available in the file that the appellant had clearly mentioned the requirement of the disputed goods for the intended purpose i.e. for repair and maintenance of various machines, namely, kiln, Clinker stock pipes etc - ven assuming that the disputed goods cannot be considered as capital goods, still I am of the view that the same shall be considered as input for the purpose of taking cenvat credit in view of the unambiguous definition of input contained in Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules - Decided in favor of the assessee.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2564
Unexplained investment in immovable property u/s 69 - Held that:- For the provisions of Section 69 of the Act to apply it is necessary that the assessee should have made investments which were not recorded in the books of account. However, when no evidence, much less incriminating evidence, was found as a result of search to suggest that the assessee has made any payment over and above the consideration mentioned, no addition u/s 69 would arise. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Suraj Devi reported in (2010 (8) TMI 217 - Delhi High Court ) has held that the primary burden of proof in such cases is on the Revenue and it is only when such burden is discharged that it would be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the Valuation Officer.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal reported in (2010 (8) TMI 65 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) has held that the primary burden to prove understatement or concealment of income was on the Revenue and it was only when such burden was discharged that it would be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the DVO. Where there was no evidence found as a result of the search to suggest that the assessee had made any payment over and above the consideration mentioned in the return no addition on the basis of report of the DVO could be made.
The department has failed to prove understatement or concealment of income vis-a-vis purchase of immovable property. The AO has simply relied on the report of the DVO without applying his mind to the facts of the case and the surroundings circumstances. Addition u/s 69 deleted - Decided against revenue
............
|
9911796707
