|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 1529 Records
-
2022 (6) TMI 1249
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - though the petitioner has filed return of income in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act, the same could not be E-verified within the due date - HELD THAT:- As it is seen that the petitioner had attempted to send a reply through the Web Portal, which could not be transmitted due to some technical glitches. Thereafter, the petitioner had sent his explanation, which was not accepted and therefore, the petitioner was served with notice, for which, he had sent a reply on 17.03.2022, seeking 10 days' time to furnish further submissions and documents.
The reason given by the Assessing Officer that the assessment was getting barred by limitation of time and further time cannot be given, is unjustifiable and improper. Hence, this Court finds that the action on the part of the authorities in refusing to give time to the petitioner for submitting further documents, is improper.
This Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 21.03.2022. Accordingly, it is set aside. The petitioner is directed to submit his reply along with supporting documents, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the respondents shall pass appropriate orders by following the procedures as contemplated under the Act, on merits and in accordance with law.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1248
Rectification application u/s 154 - Petitioner also seeks direction to refund along with applicable interest thereon, being the deposit of the Petitioner at the time of filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in respect of the Assessment Year 2009-10, which was allowed - as stated by petitioner the tax effect of all these six rectification applications taken together is in excess of Rs.3 crores. and the continued inaction in dealing with these rectification applications has resulted in huge financial resources of the Petitioner remaining locked-up - HELD THAT:- Issue notice. Mr.Sanjay Kumar, learned standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent-Revenue. He states that he has no objection if the rectification application and the appeal effect orders are directed to be passed within a time period.
Keeping in view the aforesaid as well as the facts mentioned in the present writ petition, this Court disposes of the present writ petition along with pending application with a direction to the Respondent-Revenue to decide the Petitioner’s six rectification applications in accordance with law within eight weeks. The Respondent-Revenue shall also pass the appeal effect orders for the Assessment years 2009-10 and 2012-13 within eight weeks. This Court clarifies that it has not commented on the merits of the controversy. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1247
Addition u/s. 69/69B - Unexplained investment - variation between the sale (purchase) deeds and the accounts - purchase of land, which was from farmers, was completed over a period of 3 years (beginning with the year immediately preceding the relevant previous year), resulting in a mismatch when the sale deeds were sought to be compared with the entries in the accounts for the relevant year only - HELD THAT:- The land cost as per the assessee’s accounts to be rather on a higher side, which does not agree with the AO’s finding of unexplained investment. The ld. CIT(A) has toward this end considered the entire purchase, which also addresses the differences by observed the AO with reference to the audit report, as well as the aspect of payment to the creditors, summarizing the transactions
As sale deeds being a part of the record, each of which stands reflected in the assessee’s accounts, CIT-DR was required by the Bench to show as to which entries are stated by the AO to have not been paid by the assessee till the date of registration, inasmuch as each of the four sale deeds clearly mentions of the entire sale consideration having been paid by that date, or otherwise any discrepancy observed by the AO that remains to be satisfactorily resolved, to no answer, even as the matter was kept part-heard twice
Further still, inasmuch as the land purchase details per the impugned order did not agree with that by the AO, the Bench made it a point to, during hearing, reconcile the two apparently different set of transactions, with a view to the confirm that the same are qua the same transactions, to find them as indeed so. The ‘difference’ in the dates between the two tables, i.e., by the AO and the ld. CIT(A), as we find, is on account of the fact that while the tabulation by the AO is as per the date of the presentation of the sale agreement for registration, that by the latter records the date of registration. There is as such no difference between the two. - Decided against revenue.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1246
Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - Defective notice u/s 274 - non specification of clear charge - HELD THAT:- Where the charge is not properly set out in the notice u/s 274, viz., both the limbs stand therein without striking off the inapplicable one, if any, the penalty order gets vitiated. Turning to the facts of the extant case, we find from the notice u/s 274 of the Act that the AO retained both the limbs, whereas penalty was imposed only with reference to one of them, namely furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We overturn the impugned order on this legal issue and direct to delete the penalty imposed by the AO. - Decided against revenue.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1245
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - AR submits that the provisions of Rule 8D have only prospective application and could not have been applied in the assessment year prior to the assessment year 2008-09 - HELD THAT:- The provisions of section 14A prescribe that where an assessee earns exempt income, the expenditure incurred in connection with earning of exempt income cannot be allowed - As the provisions prescribing the method of computation of quantum of disallowance are prescribed under Rule 8D w.e.f. 1.4.2007. These provisions are held to be prospective and should not be applied for any assessment year prior to the assessment year 2008-09, as held in the case of CIT vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd.2018 (2) TMI 115 - SUPREME COURT]. However, the ld. CIT(A) rightly held that the provisions of Rule 8D have no retrospective application and restricted disallowance to sum of Rs.70,000/- on ad-hoc basis. Since the respondent-assessee is not in appeal challenging amount of disallowance, we have no option, but to confirm the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Thus, we do not find any merit in the ground of appeal no.1 raised by the Revenue. Accordingly, the ground of appeal no.1 raised by the Revenue stands dismissed.
Set-off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation losses relating to the demerged undertaking - HELD THAT:- In the present case, admittedly, after the scheme of demerger, the appellant had not carried on any business of demerged undertaking and the fact that the assets transferred to the demerged unit were held for sale goes to demonstrate the intention of the appellant that they had no intention of carrying on business of demerged undertaking. The scheme of demerger was carried out only with sole object to avail the benefit of set-off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation losses of demerged undertaking. Therefore, for this very reason, the Assessing Officer had denied the benefit of set-off of brought forward business losses. According to us, the reasoning of the Assessing Officer is consistent with object behind enactment of provisions of section 72A of the Act. Furthermore, sub-section (5) of section 72A has been enacted empowering the Assessing Officer to deny the benefit of set-off of brought forward business losses, which means that merely because the scheme of demerger was approved by the Hon’ble High Court ipso facto would not entitle the assessee for the benefit of set-off of brought forward business losses, contrary to the objects behind the enactment of the provisions of section 72A of the Act.
CIT(A) had granted the benefit of set-off of brought forward business losses in a perfunctory manner without looking into the objects behind the enactment of provisions of section 72A and appears to have been carried out by the submissions of the assessee that once the scheme of demerger is approved by the Hon’ble High Court, the assessing authority cannot go behind the scheme of demerger ignoring the provisions of section 72A, which governed the set-off of brought forward business losses in the case of amalgamation/demerger etc, which prescribes the conditions to avail the benefit of the scheme. In the circumstances, we find that the order of ld. CIT(A) is illegal and unreasonable. Therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is reversed and the ground of appeal no.2 and 3 filed by the Revenue stands allowed.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1244
TDS u/s 192 or 194J - payment in respect of doctors engaged as retainers and consultants - demand raised by the AO u/s 201(1)/201(1A) - Scope of employer-employee relationship - distinction between a "contract for service" and a "Contract of service" - scope of terms and clauses of agreements entered into deductor company and retainer doctors/consultants doctors categorically affirm that there existed an evident employee employer relationship between the deductor company and retainer doctors/ consultants doctors - whether payment made to consultants doctors and retainer doctors should fall under the head Salary and the assessee hospital/ company was liable to deduct TDS at the rate applicable in the case of salary? - HELD THAT:- Chandigarh Bench of the ITAT in one of the group cases namely ACIT vs M/s. Fortis Healthcare Ltd. Mohali (2016 (3) TMI 629 - ITAT CHANDIGARH) after a detailed analysis of the terms of the agreements of the retainer doctors as well as the salaried doctors and considering the decisions of various Benches of the ITAT and the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ivy Health Life Sciences (P) Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 1063 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] held that the provisions of Section 194J applied to the retainer doctors and not those of Section 192.
In the case of EHIRC Ltd. [2017 (9) TMI 1660 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] after analyzing the two types of agreements identical to those in the present appeals and referring to judgements of other Hon'ble High Courts held that the retainer doctors attracted the provisions of Section 194J and not those of Section 192.
Having gone through the provisions of section 192, Section 194J, Section 201 of the Income tax Act 1961, facts of the instant case and the judicial pronouncements on the issue involved, we are inclined to hold that the provisions of section 194J of the Act are applicable to the assessee and not those of section 192 of the Income tax Act 1961 therefore, the appellant cannot be treated as an "assessee in default" in so far as the question of deducting tax at source in respect of doctors engaged as retainers and consultants was concerned. - Decided against revenue.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1243
LTCG - Reference to approved valuer’s reports - addition by adopting different cost of acquisition than claimed by the appellant - validity of reference of matter to the DVO u/s 55A - HELD THAT:- As relying on the case of Swami Sat yananda, 2020 (6) TMI 429 - ITAT KOLKATA] pre-amended section 55A(a) is applicable to the assessee wherein the terminology used is “is less than its fair market value” - we direct assessing officer to take indexed cost of acquisition of asset at Rs.80 per sq.meter, for the purpose of computation of long term capital gain.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1242
Allowability of "Provision for Warranty" - HELD THAT:- As merely because the assessee had returned back the provisions in subsequent year cannot be a basis for disallowing the assessee’s claim in the current year, particularly when the assessee had given specific basis for making warranty provisions. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. (2009 (5) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT] has given the criteria which are fulfilled by the assessee herein. Thus, issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1241
Allowability of 100% deduction u/s 80IC after substantial expansion - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Apex court in the matter of PCIT vs. Aarham Softronics [2019 (2) TMI 1285 - SUPREME COURT]] as held an assessee availing exemption of 100% tax on setting up of a new industry, which is admissible for 5 years, and either on the expiry of 5 years or thereafter (but within 10 years) from the date when these assessees started availing exemption, they carried out substantial expansion of its industry, from that year the assessees become entitled to claim exemption @ 100% again (Classic Binding Industries [2018 (8) TMI 1209 - SUPREME COURT] held not good law and reversed)
Hence, keeping in view, the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowing 100% deduction u/s 80IC on substantial expansion of the unit, the appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1240
Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - assessee submitted confirmation from the creditor, bank statement, audited balance sheet of Sandesh Procon LP and the loan agreement with Sandesh Procon LLP in support of genuineness of the transaction - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- As assessee was able to produce the confirmation from the creditors in support of genuineness of the transaction, loan agreement with M/s Sandesh Procon LLP, bank statement and audited balance sheet of M/s Sandesh Procon LLP evidencing the above transaction were also placed on record to prove the genuineness of transaction. Further, the fact that the loan was repaid back with interest, on which TDS was duly deducted also lends support to the genuineness of transaction.
In the case of Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji [2013 (12) TMI 372 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held that where department had accepted repayment of loan in subsequent year, no addition was to be made in current year on account of cash credit. In view of the above facts and the judicial precedents by the jurisdictional High Court, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not erred in facts and in law in deleting the additions made by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 68 - Decided in favour of assessee.
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - sufficiency of own funds - HELD THAT:- As no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) when he held that if the assessee had sufficient funds for making investments in shares and interest free bonds and it had not used borrowed funds for such purpose, no disallowance can be made under section 14A of the Act and also that AO is required to take the average of investment from where non-taxable income has been earned in order to make disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). In view of the above, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not erred in facts and law in giving part relief to the assessee in respect of disallowance made by the Ld. Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Act. - Decided against revenue.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1239
Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - non-compliance of Income Tax Notice - six reminders on different dates were also issued by the AO for filing return of income but the assessee failed to file return - no response from the side of the assessee even as when AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for the failure of the assessee to comply with notice - HELD THAT:- As obsereved in the identical facts and circumstances, the Delhi Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of assessee in part in the case of Smt. Rekha Rani [2015 (5) TMI 1100 - ITAT DELHI] by observing that penalty for the first default of non-compliance of notice under section 142(1) of the Act was sufficient enough.
Thus we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty to the tune of ₹ 20,000/- and confirm the penalty of ₹ 10,000/-only. Hence, this ground of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1238
Proceedings u/s 153A - addition on account of agricultural income - HELD THAT:- We find that in the impugned order, the learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and findings of the Assessing Officer has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee both on jurisdiction as well as on merits of the case. In the absence of any contradictory material being available on record, we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) requires no interference and, therefore, is upheld. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal for assessment year 2003–04 are dismissed.
Addition u/s 68 - Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- the source of the loan and even the source of the sources appear to be all in cash and an arrangement made to explain the credits In the hands of the appellan t- Even the claim of repayment of loan doesn't appear to be genuine as from the bank statement of Prakash Gore in Parvara Sahakari Bank Ltd., It is seen that loan claimed to be repaid to P.N. Yadav and E.K. Kapase on 23/10/2006 occurs after a cash deposit in the same account on the same date. In any case, these so called loan repayments from the above said account appear to be unique when compared to other transactions in the bank account. Also, all these transactions in the bank account had happened subsequent to the ACB search on the appellant's father and the requisition made u/s 132A by the Income Tax Department. Therefore, it can be inferred that this arrangement was made to explain to the authorities the investment in the name of the appellant. Addition confirmed - Decided against assessee.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1237
Penalty u/s 271D - contravention of section 269SS as taking cash loans and reasons for accepting loan in cash were also not reasonable and sufficient to drop the proceedings - HELD THAT:- The case of the assessee was that the loan in cash was taken from his HUF on account of extreme business exigency and necessity of honouring post dated cheques issued to the third parties. Further at that time, the assessee was not having sufficient balance in the bank, which would otherwise attract provisions of Negotiable Instrument Act and therefore, he was in compelling situation taken the loan in cash from his own HUF. Besides, to prove the genuineness of the transactions, the assessee has filed Income Tax Returns, confirmation; contra ledger accounts.
That apart the AO has neither doubted the impugned transaction nor any addition made in this behalf even under section 68 of the Act. Only the reason for the Revenue was that the receipt of the loan was in cash, which was in violation of section 269SS of the Act. Thus, the Revenue authorities imposed penalty, as if the provision of section 271D is mandatory, without considering the ‘reasonable cause’ explained by the assessee both during the penalty proceedings.
We find that the explanation given by the assessee cannot be disregarded, more so, when it was a onetime affair to meet business exigency and urgent financial necessity. Further, the impugned transaction was from his individual capacity to his HUF capacity. A reasonable and justifiable explanation has been rendered by the assessee for the impugned transaction, and therefore, imposition of penalty under section 271D of the Act was not warranted. See TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL FINANCE (I) LTD. [2012 (6) TMI 358 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]
Thus we delete impugned penalty imposed under section 271D of the Act, and allow the ground of appeal of the assessee.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1236
Bogus LTCG - genuineness of transaction not proved - exemption under section 10(38) in respect of capital gain arising from sale of shares denied - HELD THAT:- In the case of Smt. M.K. Rajeshwari [2018 (10) TMI 1649 - ITAT BANGALORE] Tribunal held that where assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38) in respect of capital gain arising from sale of shares, in view of fact that financial worth of said company was meagre and, moreover, there was abnormal rise in price of shares, it could be concluded that assessee introduced her own unaccounted money in garb of long term capital gain and, thus, claim raised by her was to be rejected.
In the present case Assessing Officer held amount so received as unexplained cash credit under section 68 and made addition on ground that assessee failed to discharge burden of proof and explain nature and source of transaction and huge profit in all shares traded by assessee against human probability. AO held that it was found that assessee failed to justify manifold increase in prices of shares despite weak financials of companies.
Investigation carried out by Department had brought facts on record that share prices had been manipulated artificially, purchased by a set of accommodation entry provider companies controlled by cartel of brokers, entry operator, etc. Moreover, fact that prices of all shares purchased by assessee went up, that too without any corresponding profit or prospects of company, and not even in single case price of share came down, was against human probabilities and impugned year was an isolated year of such profits with no such profits made in earlier or subsequent years. In such circumstances, the Tribunal held that assessee failed to prove genuineness of transaction and long-term capital gain on sale of shares by assessee was an arranged affair to convert its own unaccounted money and thus, exemption claimed under section 10(38) on sale of shares had rightly been disallowed.
Thus we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not erred in facts and in law in confirming the addition made in respect of LTCG claimed as exempt in the instant facts. - Decided against assessee.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1235
Condonation of delay of 10 years in filing the present appeal. - winding up proceedings against the assessee was initiated in the year 1998 and winding up petition was filed before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court - HELD THAT:- In the present case, winding up petition was filed against the company in the year 1998 and the winding up order was ultimately passed by the Hon’ble High Court on 30/03/2010. Thus, even if the provisions of section 458A of the Companies Act 1956 are said to be applicable to present case, the period from filing of the winding up petition till 30/03/2010 and a further period of one year from the date of winding up order i.e. till 30/03/2011, can be the excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation period of present appeal. In the present case, the impugned order by learned CIT(A) was passed on 03/12/2007. As the due date for filing the appeal against the aforesaid impugned order before the Tribunal was falling during the exclusion period, as stated in section 458A of the Companies Act, 1956, in our considered view, the limitation period in the present case started from 31/03/2011
The present appeal was filed by the assessee on 16/05/2018, i.e. after a more than 7 years from 31/03/2011. Further, in the present case, despite the cause of action having arisen after passing of the impugned order by learned CIT(A) and Official Liquidator also having power to initiate proceedings in the name of and on the behalf of the assessee, with the leave of the Court, no action was taken for filing the appeal against the impugned order.
Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 only stays the commencement or continuation of any suit or other legal proceeding, except with the leave of the Court, inter-alia, after passing of the winding up order. The entire purpose or the scheme behind this section is to protect the company, if the order of winding up is made or a provisional liquidator is appointed, so that the Court itself, if possible, disposes of the matters pertaining to the assets and properties of the company. However, neither in the application nor in the affidavit supporting the same there is any claim or any supporting document that the Hon’ble Court was approached for such permission on behalf of the assessee. From the facts stated in the affidavit, it is evident that the assessee initiated the process of filing appeal against the impugned order only after the Official Liquidator handed over the position of factory and other assets to the management of the assessee, pursuant to recall of winding up order dated 30/03/2010 by the Hon’ble High Court.
Thus, in view of above and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the assessee has failed to prove any sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the limitation period.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1234
Disallowance in respect of agricultural expenses - assessee declared gross agricultural receipts - AO found the expenses to be on lower side by considering the general market trend for agricultural expenses being incurred at 35% of gross agricultural income - HELD THAT:- AO has simply rejected the assessee’s claim of agricultural expenses being on the lower side on the basis of a yardstick of 35% being “trend of current year”. It is not understandable as to where from such ‘trend’ came into vogue. If the percentage of agricultural expenses shown by the assessee for the year under consideration is lower than that of the immediately preceding year, it is better than that for the two years immediately prior thereto.
Here is a case in which the assessee maintained complete details of agricultural expenses, which have not been faulted with by the AO. If the expenses were inadequate or wanting in any respect, the AO ought to have rejected such expenses by giving some plausible reasons, whereafter, he could have gone ahead with making a best judgment on some rational basis. Having not done so and simply making the addition on the basis of some ‘trend’, we find no reason to sustain the disallowance. For the foregoing reason, we are satisfied that the authorities below were not justified in making and sustaining the addition in such an ad hoc manner. The same is directed to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1233
Penalty u/s 271D - entries through journal entries - Violation of provisions of section 269SS - undisclosed transactions by the group, in one of the allegations against the group is of resorting to round tripping of funds to evade taxes - proof of reasonable cause u/s 273B - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case we find from the aforesaid factual narration and the basis of passing journal entries by the assessee in its books that these entries are merely passed for squaring up of transactions or adjustment of entries. This categorical finding given by the ld. CIT(A) in his order has not been controverted by the Revenue before us. Yet another categorical finding recorded by the ld. CIT(A) which remain uncontroverted by the Revenue before us is that these transactions were not made by the assessee with a malafide intent to evade tax and that there is no evidence brought on record to even remotely suggest that the assessee company by passing the aforesaid journal entries had sought to introduce its unaccounted income into the system. We find that these are genuine transactions carried out in the normal course of the business of the assessee. Hence, if the aforesaid transactions are looked into from the perspective of the object and intention behind introduction of provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Act , then the provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Act cannot be made applicable to the facts of the instant case. Moreover, from the detailed explanation of the aforesaid transactions together with the purpose for which those journal entries were passed, it could be safely concluded that these entries neither reflect any receipt of loan nor repayment of loan. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1232
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - TPO had excluded companies having turnover of less than Rs.1 crore, however, the AO / TPO has not put upper limit to turnover for exclusion of companies having high turnover - HELD THAT:- We direct the AO / TPO to exclude the mentioned six companies [Larsen & Toubro Infotech Limited, Mindtree Limited, Persistent Systems Limited, R S Software (India) Limited, Infosys Systems Limited AND Thirdware Solutions Limited] since it is having turnover exceeding Rs.200 crore. It is ordered accordingly.
Interest on outstanding receivables from AE - TPO did not consider the assessee’s submission that the trade receivables are not separate international transaction and impact if any, gets subsumed by way of working capital adjustment - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2008-2009 (2016 (10) TMI 1211 - ITAT BANGALORE) had directed AO / TPO to determine afresh the ALP in respect of providing SWD services by considering the proper working capital adjustment in comparable prices. It was held by the Tribunal that in case after giving necessary adjustment, the international transaction of the assessee is found to be at arm’s length, then there is no question of separate adjustment on account of allowing credit period from receivables from AE.
Taking a consistent stand, we direct the AO / TPO to redo the transfer pricing analysis in respect of interest on outstanding receivables by taking into account the directions of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case.
Advances to the employees against their salary for meeting expenses on food and travel while working on clients deliverables / projects - advances which could not be recovered has been written of to the profit and loss account of the assessee for the relevant assessment year and claimed as allowable expenses / business loss in terms of section 37(1) r.w.s. 28 - HELD THAT:- The claim made by the assessee is not towards bad debt u/s 36(1)(vii) of the I.T.Act, but under the provisions of section 28 of the I.T.Act as business or trade loss. Giving advance to the employees as well as vendors were essential and wholly and exclusively linked to the business of the assessee. The loss if any is an incidental business loss. In this context, we rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Triveni Engineering & Industries Limited [2010 (9) TMI 26 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Further, the advances given to the vendors, which is non-recoverable, is also allowable as business loss. This proposition has also been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd.[1962 (5) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT].
Since the A.O. has not examined the claim of deduction u/s 37(1) r.w.s. 28 of the I.T.Act, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue to the files of the A.O. for de novo consideration. The assessee is directed to furnish necessary evidences before the A.O. The A.O. is directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Disallowance on an adhoc basis 10% of the per diem allowance granted to the employees - company paid aggregate amount as per diem to the employees travelling for business / official purposes outside India to cover actual expenses of meals, travel, laundry and miscellaneous expenses etc - HELD THAT:- The per diem is given to the employees to meet daily expenses for foreign travels. The expenses are reimbursed on the basis of self-declaration of the employees. Since, these amounts are small amounts, reimbursement are given based on the self-declaration given by the employees. Per diem allowance is very minimal amount to meet the daily need and is not disproportionate or unreasonable. In this context, we rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Symphony Marketing Solutions India (P.) Ltd. [2016 (5) TMI 693 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that "per diem allowance of $50 to $75 paid by the assessee to its employees on official trips to the USA and Europe to be reasonable”
We are of the view that adhoc disallowance of 10% of per diem by AO and confirmed by the DRP is uncalled for. Therefore, we delete the disallowance.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1231
Violation of principles of natural justice - delay in adjudication of show cause notices should be attributed to petitioner or not - HELD THAT:- The petitioner having filed response to the show cause notices, the adjudicating authority should be given an opportunity to conclude the proceedings.
Should petitioner wish to make any further reply to the show cause notice, the same shall be filed within one week from today - the adjudicating authority will adjudicate on the show cause notices and pass a detailed and well reasoned order within six weeks from today.
Petition disposed off.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1230
Seeking unconditional release of consignments - import of white whole Areca Nuts of Sri Lankan origin - HELD THAT:- In the course of investigation the samples were drawn and sent to Arecanut Research and Development Foundation, Mangalore by the customs authorities for determination of Country of Origin. The report dated 30th January 2020 issued by Arecanut Research and Development Foundation, Mangalore states that "it seems to be of white whole Areca Nuts of Sri Lankan origin. The Areca nut samples supplied are of poor quality and as much as 20% of nuts are infested with moulds and does not comply with BIS standards for Areca nut. They are neither fit for chewing nor consumption by humans”.
There is no affidavit in rejoinder and Mr.Inderpal Singh Nirmale counsel for petitioner stated that petitioner has not checked the goods recently but it is possible that what is stated in the affidavit in reply could be correct because of passage of time.
Respondents are directed to destroy the consignment of Arecanuts as per the procedure prescribed within four weeks from today - petition disposed off.
............
|
9911796707
