|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 1280 Records
-
2022 (10) TMI 1001
Cancellation of registration of petitioner - whether no reason has been provided in the show cause notice as to why the proceeding for cancellation of registration under the CGST Act is sought to be initiated against the petitioner? - section 129 of CGST Act - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The show cause notice suspending the GST registration of the petitioner w.e.f. 18.08.2022 is due to the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the GST Act for violation of the provisions in issuing invoice or bill without supply of goods & wrongful availement of the benefits under the Act. The petitioner should furnish a proper reply to the show cause notice dated 18.08.2022 making out a case as to why action cannot be taken against him. As the petitioner has approached this Court without furnishing any reply to the show cause notice, this is not a fit case for interference.
Petition disposed off.
-
2022 (10) TMI 1000
Seeking direction to re-credit amount in electronic credit ledger - period of limitation for refund - Gap between online application and physical application - time limitation in terms of Explanation (2) (c) (1) of Section 54 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017
HELD THAT:- Sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the CGST Act provides that any person claiming refund of any tax and interest, if any, paid on such tax or any other amount paid by him, may make an application before the expiry of two years from the relevant date in such form and manner as may be prescribed. Prior to the insertion of Explanation (2) (ba) by the Finance Act, 2022, the relevant date in the case of goods exported out of India by land, the date on which such goods pass the frontier. In the case of services exported out of India, the date of receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange or in Indian rupees or issue of invoices, where payment of the services had been received in advance prior to the date of issue of the invoice, is treated as relevant date.
The total case of the respondents is thus that since the physical submission of the application along with documents was on 17.10.2019, it was beyond the period of two years and therefore time barred, counted from the relevant date.
It is not in dispute that the petitioners filed their refund application in the common portal on 28.12.2018 and ARN was generated. Until the application with documents were physically submitted on 17.10.2019, the respondents did not do anything on the application, which was filed as per the mechanism adopted by the respondents, on 28.12.2018. It is not in dispute that the refund claim of the petitioner otherwise satisfied all requirements of Section 54 of the CGST Act and the attendant Rules and the petitioner was eligible to seek refund. The refund claim was however considered as time barred stating that the application was liable to be treated to have been filed on 17.10.2019 and not on 28.12.2018.
It has to be held that the date of filing of the application by the petitioner on common portal would be liable to be treated as date of filing claim for refund to the satisfaction of requirement of Section 54 of the CGST Act and Rule 89 of the CGST Rules. The procedure evolved in Circular dated 15.11.2017 cannot operate as delimiting condition on the applicability of statutory provisions - the respondents are directed to re-credit the amount of Rs.3,37,076/- in the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order of rejection of the claim, i.e., 19.11.2019 till realization - petition allowed.
-
2022 (10) TMI 999
Release of detained goods - Petitioner / Revenue had received intelligence that the goods are being transported twice over on the same set of invoices - Section 129 (3) of the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- The plain reading of the provisions of CGST Act makes it clear that the provisions as contained in Chapter 19 including Section 129 are the provisions for release of goods intercepted during transportation on the ground as engrafted therein and provides an opportunity to the assessee to take the benefit and to come forward for release of the goods on payment of the amounts as indicated in Section 129 (1)(a)(b) and (c) as the case may be. The quantum of penalty which is to be paid under Section 129 (1)(a)(b) and (c) is to be determined under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act. The said power is purely an alternate mode given to the assessees to come forward and to avoid any future litigation and to offer and pay the amount. If the assessee does not avail the benefit as accrue from Section 129, the department is clearly free to take recourse under Chapter 15 read with Section 122 of the CGST Act to take steps for determining the tax due liability and the penalty.
In the present case, as the respondent has not approached for availing the benefit that flow from Section 129, coupled with the fact that the appellate authority found that the basis for initiating proceedings were non-existent, there are no reason to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority, in exercise of powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India - petition dismissed.
-
2022 (10) TMI 998
Validity of demand u/s 129 - Seeking release of detained goods - delayed generation of E-way bill - case of the petitioner's company is that although the Part- B of the e-way bill was not generated, the same was attributable to the transporter, however, before the goods were actually seized, the e-way bill was generated at about 7.34 am in the morning on the next date i.e. 25.09.2018 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the department has proceeded to determine the tax liability as well as penalty only under the provisions of Section 129 of the Act, which is not contemplated or intended. On a plain reading of Section 129, there is no provision under section 129 for determination of tax due, which can be done only by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act, as the case may be.
As the proceedings have been initiated and concluded only under section 129 and the owner of the goods has not come forward for payment of such penalty as has been determined, the entire action of determining the tax and penalty under section 129(1) as has been done by means of the impugned order and upheld in the appellate proceedings, impugned before this Court, there are no hesitation in holding that the order passed on 17.10.2018 and as upheld by the order dated 31.10.2020 are not legally substitutable and are accordingly set aside.
The amount paid by the petitioner for release of the goods shall be refunded to the petitioner with all expedition preferably within a period of two months from today - the writ petition is allowed.
-
2022 (10) TMI 997
Direction to conclude the proceedings under section 129 after having initiated the proceedings under the provision of section 129 of the CGST Act - detention/ seizure/adjudication of penalty for the goods in transit - HELD THAT:- By way of interim relief, it is directed that the respondent shall release the goods and the conveyance of the petitioner confiscated and detained pursuant to the order dated 24.09.2022 passed in Form No. GST MOV-11 subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner deposits the amount of penalty on the goods of Rs. 4,14,850/-;
(ii) The petitioner deposits the amount of fine in lieu of confiscation of the conveyance, amounting to Rs. 4,14,850/-. Thus, the petitioner, in all, shall deposit Rs. 8,29,700/-;
(iii) The petitioner furnishes the bond to the tune of Rs. 23,04,724/-.
Upon compliance of the above conditions by the petitioner, the goods and the conveyance of the petitioner be released by the respondent-authority. The order of the interim relief shall remain part of the main matter - Civil Application is allowed and disposed of.
-
2022 (10) TMI 996
Demand of interest under Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Period between July, 2017 and October, 2019 - HELD THAT:- It is appropriate that the petitioner file a reply to notice dated 04.02.2020, setting out the proper interest payable, according to it.
Let the amount be re-determined by the authority in light of the decision of this Court in the case of M/S. MAANSAROVAR MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, THE BRANCH MANAGER [2020 (11) TMI 107 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], within a period of four (4) weeks from today, after hearing the petitioner - it was held in the said case that Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the interest liability relating to belated payment of tax both by cash and reversal of ITC has been coercively recovered - With the insertion of the proviso to be taken to be retrospective, these writ petitions are allowed.
In light of the alleged demand for interest, the respondent has attached the bank account of the petitioner in Axis Bank Limited, Anna Salai, Chennai in Form GST DRC-13. The attachment shall continue till such time re-computation is effected, as stipulated supra, and subject to the same - petition disposed off.
-
2022 (10) TMI 995
Provisional attachment of current account of the petitioner - time limitation - Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The attachment as per Section 83(2) shall cease to have effect after a period of one year from date of order of attachment. Thus, pending writ petition, the impugned order has ceased to have effect, as on 15.09.2020. With this, this writ petition has been rendered infructuous.
There is no further embargo on the operation of the bank account and on the petitioner resuming operations in that regard - Petition disposed off.
-
2022 (10) TMI 994
Validity of distinction between registered borrower and unregistered borrower - distinction in respect of GST liability or not - It was submitted that the petitioner is penalised for the reason that the borrower may be unregistered person - HELD THAT:- Notice returnable on 16.11.2022.
In order to avoid irreversible situation, in the event the petitioner succeeds in the petition, interim relief deserves to be granted. By way of ad interim relief, it is directed that the competent authority of the respondent shall not take any further steps pursuant to the impugned show-cause notice.
-
2022 (10) TMI 993
Principles of natural justice - whether petitioner has not submitted any reply to the charges levelled in the impugned show cause notice? - reverse charge mechanism - HELD THAT:- The petitioner had responded to the show cause notice and the same should have been considered and dealt with in the impugned order dated 6th July 2021. Respondent No.2 not having done that, impugned order requires to be quashed and set aside, which we hereby do. The matter is remanded for denovo consideration. Before passing any order, which shall be within eight weeks from today, petitioner shall be given a personal hearing, notice whereof shall be given atleast seven working days in advance. If petitioner wish to file any written submissions, petitioner may do so within three working days of the personal hearing.
It is also noted that this is one more case where respondents have passed such order without applying its mind and without considering the records.
Petition disposed off.
-
2022 (10) TMI 992
Revocation of order of cancellation of registration of the petitioner - Rule 22(1) of the CGST Rules 2017 - HELD THAT:- The facts of the case as already noted in the order dated 04.07.2022, clearly reflects that a show cause notice for cancellation of registration under Rule 22(1) of the CGST Rules 2017 was issued by the respondent to the petitioner and the order cancelling the registration was passed on 13.03.2020. Thereafter another show cause notice dated 22.09.2021 for cancellation of registration was issued by the respondent no.4 and second order of cancellation was passed on 22.09.2021. The application of the petitioner for revocation of the order of cancellation of registration was rejected by the respondents by a non speaking order dated 07.10.2021. Under the circumstances the petitioner again moved an application for revocation of cancellation of registration on 29.10.2021 and thereupon a show cause notice dated 10.11.2021 has been issued which has been replied by the petitioner vide reply dated 17.11.2021 and yet the respondents are not taking any decision.
This writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the concerned respondent to decide the pending applications of the petitioner for revocation of order cancelling the registration, in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
-
2022 (10) TMI 991
Levy of GST - work pertains to hiring of services for Artificial Intelligence Machine Learning based reservoir modeling, both static and dynamic - petitioner alleges that the tender notice fails to specify a uniform GST rate applicable to all bidders for the services - HELD THAT:- On balancing the equities, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice as well as public interest would be served if an interim order is passed at this stage. Accordingly, it is provided that no further action be taken by the respondent nos. 1 & 2 OIL in furtherance to the LOI dated 01.07.2022 and the respondent no. 3 is accordingly directed not to further advance with the work which is the subject matter of this writ petition till the returnable date.
Since, the work is of public interest, an endeavor would be made to dispose of the writ petition on the returnable date, on which date, the learned counsel representing the OIL is directed to produce the records - List this case after 4(four) weeks.
-
2022 (10) TMI 990
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Claim for compensation paid/provided to the profit and loss account (P&L Account) - ITAT confirmed the order of the CIT(A) holding that since there was no fresh tangible material in the possession of the Assessing Officer on the basis of which a belief could be formed for escapement of income, the re-opening notice was bad in law - HELD THAT:- As observed by the ITAT that since the impugned issue was examined by the A.O., in view of the query asked by him, which was properly replied with proper details after which the original assessment order under Section 143(3) came to be passed accepting the impugned claim, the AO did not have the shield of Explanation-1 to Section 147 to justify the re-opening which was done without there being any fresh tangible material in the possession of the Assessing Officer. The above findings of fact have not been controverted by the Revenue.
As recorded in the Tribunal order that the Assessing Officer before recording the reasons for reopening has made reference to the same documents/material which were also on the record of the Assessing Officer in the original assessment proceedings under Section 143(3). We, therefore, observe that there does not appear to be any fresh tangible material that has come into the possession of the Assessing Officer before recording the reasons for re-opening the assessment. Even in the recorded reasons, the Assessing Officer clearly states that his observations are based “on a perusal of records” but no fresh or new tangible material has been referred to or brought on record.
The re-opening is within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore, it is important that the officer reopening a assessment has reason to believe based on tangible material that income has escaped assessment. What we observe from the aforesaid facts is that the dis-allowance of the claim of Rs. 6,50,00,000/- on account of compensation is based on record that was already with the AO at the time of the proceedings under Section 143 (3) of the Act.
There is no new or fresh tangible material that has been brought on record. This appears to be an attempt to view the same material from a different angle of perception. It is nothing but a case of change of opinion, which cannot be permitted. We also agree with the Tribunal that since the impugned issue was examined by the A.O. on a query raised by him and which was replied to with details during the original scrutiny proceedings, Explanation 1 to Section 147 would not be applicable in the facts of the case. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (10) TMI 989
TP Adjustment - provisions of services of market development (services of carrying out advertisement, market & business promotion i.e. AMP) - international transactions or not? - TPO computed the adjustment by applying the Bright Line method - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the impugned order shows that the ITAT in its impugned order concluded that the factual matrix has remained consistent in AY 2009-10 [2017 (2) TMI 650 - ITAT DELHI] AND AY 2010-11[2017 (10) TMI 998 - ITAT DELHI] and, therefore, relied upon the findings recorded for AY 2009-10 to hold that the expenses incurred on AMP does not constitute an international transaction between the Assessee and its AE.
The law on the issue of AMP is well settled by the aforesaid judgements of this Court and the same has been consistently applied by the appellate authorities below and the predecessor benches of this Court to the facts of the Assessee in AY 2009-10 and AY 2011-12. Therefore, we are unable to agree with learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue that there is any change in law which would merit reconsideration of said issues of AMP in the present proceedings. We, therefore, hold that the ITAT has properly and correctly assessed the fact and law while concluding that services of AMP are not international transactions in light of the provisions of sub-clause (d) of clause (i) of Explanation to Section 92B.
-
2022 (10) TMI 988
Depreciation on goodwill and depreciation of patents and trademark - HELD THAT:- There is no infirmity in the finding returned by the appellate authorities that the business rights acquired by the Assessee under its agreement with UIL for valuable consideration constitutes an intangible asset within the meaning of Section 32(1)(ii) - Revenue has not disputed the exclusive nature of rights, payment of consideration and the same being of an enduring nature, since it span for 20 years. In these facts, the capitalisation of the said business rights as an intangible asset has been correctly upheld by the appellate authorities. Therefore, the Assessee was entitled to claim depreciation.
Similarly, with respect to the acquisition of IP rights from SAL, Revenue does not dispute the nature of the rights acquired and the limited contention raised is with respect to confirmation of the payment of consideration recorded in the agreement. The said contention raised by Revenue is firstly a question of fact, which objection is not borne out from the record and secondly, Assessee has stated that the said agreement was executed under the aegis of BIFR, since SAL was a sick company and there was no doubt raised by Revenue with respect to the payment of consideration. The ownership of the IP rights of the Assessee stands proved on record, its use by the Assessee is also not disputed and therefore the appellate authorities have rightly held that the Assessee is entitled to claim deprecation u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act on the said IP rights.
The facts as well as the law were properly and correctly assessed by the CIT(A) and the ITAT. We, therefore, answer the question of law framed in these appeals against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee.
-
2022 (10) TMI 987
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice u/s 274 - As argued non striking off the “inaccurate particular of income” portion in the notice under section 274 - HELD THAT:- On facts it is found that the assessee’s aim to offer interest income on income tax refund was an inadvertent and bona fide error and no contumacious conduct has been established by the assessing officer. The revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the correctness of the order passed by the CIT also found that notice issued by the assessing officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was defective, inasmuch as the irrelevant portion of the notice has not been struck off.
Therefore, the assessee did not have adequate opportunity to put forward their submission in response to the penalty notice. The learned Senior Counsel had referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Principal CIT, Central - 2 Kolkata Vs. Brijendra Kumar Poddar [2021 (12) TMI 24 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] where the Court took into consideration the decision in the case of CIT Vs. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. Thus we find that the correct legal position has not been noted by the CIT but the learned Tribunal as well. No substantial question arising for consideration in this appeal.
-
2022 (10) TMI 986
Transfer of case u/s 127 - transfer of the case from the present jurisdiction at Rajkot to DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle, Varanasi - HELD THAT:- Section 127 of the Act expressly provides for affording opportunity of hearing to the concerned assessee when the powers to transfer the assessment is to be exercised by the competent authority under the said provision. When the petitioner is deprived of such opportunity, there is a statutory infraction in addition to the violation of natural justice operating to the prejudice of the petitioner as his case was not considered by the authority.
In the impugned order also it is stated that the assessee did not file any reply against the proposed centralisation under section 127 of the Act. It also became undisputed that the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of hearing. Drawing of conclusion by the authorities that the assessee had no objection on such proposed transfer, not only violated the basic principle of natural justice which are incorporated in section 127 itself, under which the powers are exercised, but it also acted arbitrarily assuming that the petitioner had no objection to the proposed transfer.
This petition is allowed to the extent by remitting back the case to the competent authority of the respondents. The competent authority shall decide on the issue of transfer of assessment of the petitioner from Rajkot to DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle, Varanasi afresh by giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner after considering the objections raised by the petitioner
The exercise shall be completed and necessary orders shall be passed in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy this order.
In order that the competent authority of the respondent is enabled to decide afresh, the impugned order dated 23.2.0221 passed u/s 127(2) of the Act is set aside.
-
2022 (10) TMI 985
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - As per CIT, claim of deduction of expenses with respect to the purchase, expenses, brokerage or interest is not in accordance with the law - AO has not verified the Sundry Creditors, other expenses, brokerage paid and unsecured loan - HELD THAT:- We find that the Assessing Officer has called for all the information required for making assessment, have perused the relevant details filed by the assessee, wherever the details are not coming forth the requisite penalty notices were issued and the balance information was obtained and verified. PCIT has also called for the report of the learned Assessing Officer where AO has also shown that requisite notices under Section 133(6) of the Act were issued and replies were obtained from lenders. It is not the case of the learned PCIT that the AO has allowed the claim of the assessee or not made addition/ disallowances, which should have been made as per law.
Only reason for holding the order of AO erroneous is that interest was not examined if same were utilized for the purpose of the business, the expenses were correct or genuine and whether for brokerage expenses services were rendered or not. PCIT did not find single instances despite having all the information available with him, which is even remotely suggesting and supporting the reasons for which order under Section 263 of the Act was passed.
If the order has been passed without making enquiries or verification which are reasonable and prudent officer should have carried out, in that case no doubt the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer becomes erroneous. However, the learned PCIT should have shown that what are the further enquiries or verification should have been made by AO which he has failed to do. The revisionary authority should be in a position to show that failure to make the enquiry in a particular fashion, which should have been made by the man of reasonable prudence, and learned Assessing Officer has failed to do so. This could have been shown by also looking at the past assessment history of the assessee. In fact the assessee has shown that in earlier assessment year passed under scrutiny assessment did not result into any addition. There is nothing in the revisionary order to show that the claim of deduction of expenses with respect to the purchase, expenses, brokerage or interest is not in accordance with the law.
Also not shown that fresh loans taken by the assessee and he has failed to discharge initial onus. In the result, we do not find that the assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer is erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (10) TMI 984
Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credit in respect of share capital and share premium received by the assessee during the year - HELD THAT:- Both the authorities have reached and based their conclusions to make addition on the fact that the directors of the subscribing companies were not produced before the AO which in no way could not be the basis for making addition as the assessee has filed all the necessary documents before the authorities below proving the identities, creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decisions of Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd [2010 (7) TMI 841 - KOLKATA HIGH COURT] wherein it has held that where all the evidences were filed by the assesse proving the identity and creditworthiness of the loan transactions , the fact that summon issued were returned un-served or no body complied with them is of little significance to prove the genuineness of the transactions and identity and creditworthiness of the creditors.
As the assessee has furnished all the evidences proving identity and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions but neither AO nor ld CIT(A) commented on these evidences filed by the assessee. Considering these facts in the light of ratio laid down in the decisions as discussed above , we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2022 (10) TMI 983
TDS u/s 195 - payment made to its parent company - payment is made by the appellant under cost Sharing agreement with its group wherein the BASF SE who is another member in the pool - Whether payment made by the appellant to BASF SE is payment in the nature of fees for technical services? - HELD THAT:- The assessee, on the basis of cost sharing agreement and also in light auditor certificate claimed that payment made to non-resident entity is not liable to be taxed in India and consequently, the assessee need not to deduct TDS in India. We find that although the assessee claims to have reimbursed cost incurred by parent company to provide certain common services without any markup, the said claim of the assessee was not substantiated.
Further, if we go through the cost sharing agreement between the assessee and its parent company, the services to be rendered are in the nature of composite services and from the said agreement, it is difficult to ascertain whether they are in the nature of ‘fee for technical services’ or only reimbursement of cost. Although, the assessee strongly relied upon the certificate issued by the Deloitte GmbH and contended that the payment made to the non-resident is only cost incurred by the parent company without any mark-up, which was not supported by any evidence. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the issue needs to be re-examined in light of various averments including cost sharing agreement, certificate issued by the Deloitte GmbH and the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act read with DTAA between India and Germany.
The issue needs to go back to the Assessing Officer for further verification and accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue of applicability of TDS as per section 195 of the Act on payment made to non-resident and decide the issue in accordance with law. Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2022 (10) TMI 982
Addition towards loss of chit - assessee has subscribed for chit fund and made a premature drawing and incurred loss - assessee has claimed chit loss as business loss on the ground that the chit fund has been used for the purpose of business - AO had disallowed chit loss on the ground that the subscription to chit is mutuality and any gain on chit fund is exempt from tax and consequently, loss on chit cannot be allowed as deduction - HELD THAT:- We find that, the CIT(A) has deleted the addition by following decision of V. Raj Kumar [2014 (3) TMI 388 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where as clearly held that any profit or loss arising from the chit subscription activity is liable for taxation and consequent loss of chit is a allowable deduction. The finding of facts recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) in light of decision of Jurisdictional High Court of Madras, V. Raj Kumar vs CIT is uncontroverted by the Revenue. Therefore, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject ground filed by the Revenue.
Unexplained credit u/s. 68 - AO has made addition towards unsecured loan taken from M/s. D.S. Metal (P) Ltd and M/s. Shakthi Metals and Steels, on the ground that the assessee could not submit necessary evidence including confirmation letters from the party - CIT(A) deleted addition on the basis of confirmation letters filed by the assessee - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the assessee could not file confirmation letters before the AO. However, the assessee has obtained confirmation letters from the creditors and submitted before the CIT(A). Although, CIT(A) has furnished additional evidence along with confirmation letters to the AO, but the AO chose not to comment on additional evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, on this ground itself, the addition made by the AO cannot be sustained. CIT(A) has discussed the addition made by the AO in light of confirmation letters filed by the assessee and has recorded categorical finding that the assessee has proved unsecured loan, claims to have been received from M/s. D.S. Metal (P) Ltd and M/s. Shakthi Metals and Steels. The factual findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) is uncontroverted by the Revenue. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no error in reasons given by the CIT(A) to delete addition.
Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
