|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 2067 Records
-
2017 (11) TMI 1769
Assessment u/s 153A - whether any incriminating material was found in the course of search or not? - Held that:- Neither in the assessment order nor in the order of CIT (A), there is any discussion on this aspect of the matter. The relevant panchanama is also not made available before us by any side in the paper book. Under these facts, we feel it proper to restore the entire matter back to the file of CIT (A) for fresh decision in the light of this case of CIT Vs. Lancy Constructions [2016 (2) TMI 797 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] after examining this factual aspect of the matter as to whether any incriminating material was found during the course of search or not. If required, the CIT (A) may obtain remand report form AO on this aspect i.e. finding of incriminating material in the course of search and thereafter, he should pass necessary order as per law in both years after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides.
Thus hold that after deciding technical aspect, CIT (A) should decide the entire aspect on merit in both years afresh.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1768
Dishonor of Cheque - insufficient funds - repayment of friendly loan - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Held that:- The parties were in fiduciary relationship and heavy burden was on the complainant to prove that he had advanced a loan of ₹ 15,00,000/- to his client without obtaining any writing and that he has not misused any blank cheque of his client. Such loan was not shown in the income tax return of the complainant.
The case of the complainant becomes highly doubtful and is not beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, no presumption under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be raised - Both the courts below erred in holding the accused- petitioner guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Decided against petitioner.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1767
Denial of deduction u/s 80IC - four items of income which were classified by the assessee under the head ‘Other income’ - Held that:- Interest on debtors it is seen as an admitted position that this amount represents interest received from debtors for late payment of sale proceeds. Debtors have obviously arisen from the eligible business of the enterprise. Such interest partakes the character of the sale proceeds to which it relates in so far as the availability of deduction is concerned. The same is, therefore, eligible for deduction as it is income derived from the sale proceeds of the eligible business.
Foreign exchange fluctuation is, admittedly, on account of trading transactions. Sale is recorded at the rate of foreign exchange prevalent at the time when exports are made. If, later on, an excess amount is received due to upward revision of foreign exchange rate, such excess amount is nothing, but, part of sale proceeds only, which was earlier recorded at a lower rate in accordance with the foreign exchange rate prevalent at the material time. Thus, foreign exchange fluctuation is very much an item of income derived by the assessee from the business of eligible undertaking. The same is, ergo, held to be eligible for deduction.
Interest subsidy - Nature of income as contended by the assessee before the CIT(A) is that it paid interest on loans taken for purchase of plant & machinery and, thereafter, government allowed subsidy for payment of such interest - in support of deduction, AR relied on Circular No.39/2016 which takes cognizance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016 (3) TMI 375 - SUPREME COURT) and provides that the subsidy of transport, power and interest given by the government to the industrial undertakings are receipts which have been reimbursed for elements of costs relating to manufacture/sale of products and, accordingly, deduction should be allowed on them.
In our considered opinion, this Circular does not advance the case of the assessee because it seeks to provide for deduction in respect of subsidies which go to reimbursement of cost in the production of particular business. When we advert to the facts of the instant case, it is found that the instant interest subsidy is in respect of interest ‘paid on loans taken for purchase of plant & machinery.’ There being patent difference between the items of subsidy referred to in the Circular and the nature of income earned by the assessee, being, subsidy for interest on loan taken for purchase of plant and machinery, we find the claim of the assessee for deduction wanting on this item of income. The action of the authorities below in not allowing deduction u/s 80IC on this amount, is approved.
Royalty/rent received on which deduction u/s 80IC was not allowed. This item, again, in our considered opinion cannot be considered as ‘Profits and gains derived by an enterprise from any business’ referred to in sub-section (2). Rental income has no relation with the eligible business. The view of the authorities on this issue is also upheld.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1766
CENVAT Credit - clearance of waste/by-products - Pressmud, Bagasse and Compost, Boiler Ash etc. - Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules - Held that:- An identical issue has been decided by the order of Tribunal in Shivratna Udyog Ltd. & Ors. [2017 (9) TMI 985 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where it was held that in case of removal of waste or by-product Rule 6(3) has no application - CENVAT credit need not be reversed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1765
Levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - initiation of penalty on one charge i.e. "concealment of income‟ and levied penalty on another charge i.e. "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income" - Held that:- Bare perusal of recording of satisfaction, notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) and the order levying penalty, it is unambiguously clear that the Assessing Officer was not clear in his mind qua the charge under which penalty is to be levied. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty on one charge i.e. "concealment of income‟ and levied penalty on another charge i.e. "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income".
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) has held that the order imposing penalty has to be made only on the ground for which the penalty proceedings have been initiated. It cannot be on a ground of which the assessee has no notice. The Pune Benches of the Tribunal have been consistently holding that recording of satisfaction on one ground and levying penalty on another would make the penalty order bad in law. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Wrongful claim of bogus expenditure - A.Y. 2006-07 - Held that:- Where the assessee has completely withheld information about the income generated and there is no mention of such income either in the books or the return of income, such suppression of income would fall within the expression „concealment of income‟. It is not so in the present case. The assessee has made wrongful claim of bogus expenditure, therefore, it would be a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, in our considered view the Assessing Officer while recording satisfaction for levying penalty has erred in invoking wrong limb of section 271(1)(c). Consequently, the penalty has been levied under wrong charge for concealment of income. It is a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and not concealment of income. Since, the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) has been levied on wrong charge - Appeal of assessee is allowed.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1764
Addition on account of share premium/share application money/unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - non providing opportunity for cross examination - Held that:- It is cardinal principle of natural justice, that before conclusions are drawn against a person based on statement of a third party, he must be allowed an opportunity for cross examination. This has not been provided. There is a limit to the capacity or responsibility expected of an assessee to prove facts. AO has not inquired into or reported on assessment in the case of the investor companies.
There is no specific evidence cited by the AO in respect of the investor companies and the appellant which would shift the burden back on the appellant u/s 68. The assessing officer has stated that the appellant has not disproved the findings of the department. Now the question is what are the appellant specific findings that has to be disproved is not spelt out. In this fact matrix, and the judicial decisions covering the scope of section 68, the addition made in respect of share capital and advances u/s 68 in the case of the appellant is deleted. - decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1763
Compromise to take effect after admission of the insolvency petition - Held that: As appellant and the respondent both agree that the matter has since been settled amicably between the parties.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal prima facie could not avail of the inherent powers recognised by Rule 11 of the National Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 to allow a compromise to take effect after admission of the insolvency petition. We are of the view that instead of all such orders coming to the Supreme Court as only the Supreme Court may utilise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the relevant Rules be amended by the competent authority o as to include such inherent powers. This will obviate unnecessary appeals being filed before this Court in matters where such agreement has been reached. On the facts of the present case, we take on record the settlement between the parties and set aside the NCLAT order. Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1762
Levy of concealment of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - AO has initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income - mistake in notice - Held that:- As decided in MAK DATA P. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II [2013 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT] AO has to satisfy whether the penalty proceedings be initiated or not during the course of the assessment proceedings and the AO is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing.
As decided in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS SMT. KAUSHALYA AND OTHERS [1995 (1) TMI 25 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] under section 274 all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given an opportunity of being heard. A mistake in the notice would not invalidate penalty proceedings
The sequence of events as narrated hereinbefore is : (i) the assessee-company filed its return of income for the AY 2008-09 on 09.07.2008 disclosing total income of ₹ 11,49,410/-, (ii) the AO issued notice u/s 148 on 21.02.2012, (iii) the assessee filed an affidavit on 20.03.2013 offering ₹ 15,00,000/- to tax and (iv) the AO complete the assessment on 22.03.2013 making an addition of ₹ 15,00,000/- to the income shown by the assessee.
The background as delineated hereinbefore is that during the course of search and seizure action u/s 132 conducted in the case of M/s Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd., it was revealed that these were fraudulent transactions. This led the assessee-company to offer ₹ 15,00,000/- to tax by filing an affidavit before the AO on 20.03.2013. Therefore, the submission of the Ld. counsel of the assessee delineated at para 9 hereinbefore loses its significance.
Where the assessee himself voluntarily concedes that a particular item of income had been concealed by him and surrenders such income for the purpose of assessment, there is nothing left for the Revenue to prove the factum of it being assessee’s income and also the factum of it having been concealed by him. In such cases, such concession by the assessee may afford sound foundation for the imposition of penalty.
To recapitulate, the AO issued the notice u/s 148 on 21.02.2012. The assessee-company filed an affidavit on 20.03.2013 offering ₹ 15,00,000/- to tax. The said affidavit filed by the assessee has not explained the manner in which the said income was earned and the reason, if any, for not offering the said income to tax in the original return filed or in response to the notice issued u/s 148. - Decided against assessee.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1761
Deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e) - when the assessee company is neither a registered nor a beneficial shareholder of the lender companies, the loan/advance received by the assessee company from these group companies could be taxed in its hand as “deemed dividend” within the provisions of section 2(22)(e) - Held that:- The issue in dispute as to applicability of section 2(22)(e) to a non shareholder recipient of loan / advance, thus, now stands settled. As far case laws, cited by the Ld DR, are concerned it would be suffice to say that they do not address the specific issue of treating receipt of an advance/loan as deemed dividend in the hands of the non shareholder recipient which is the core dispute in the present appeal.
In the present case, the assessee company is neither a registered nor a beneficial shareholder of the lender companies and the loan / advance is also not alleged to have been received by the assessee company on behalf of or for the benefit of its alleged shareholder i.e. Sh Charanjeet Nagpal. No error in the order of the CIT(Appeals) in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Therefore, appeal this ground of appeal of revenue is dismissed.
Addition under the head “Income from House Property” - reasonable rent for which the property may be let out - Held that:- Where a property is fully let out, its Annual Value is to be taken at higher of the actual rent received / receivable from the said property or the sum for which the said property might reasonably be expected to let out from year to year.
In the present case, municipal valuation of the concerned property was made on 27/06/2009 by the Municipal Corporation fixing the annual value of the property at ₹ 7,22,640/- relevant for the Assessment Year under appeal. In view of the decision in the case of John Tipson& Co. (P) Ltd [2006 (10) TMI 94 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI] as well Calcutta Hugh Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Satya Co. Ltd [1993 (8) TMI 293 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] as discussed the “reasonable rent” for which the property might be let out cannot exceed thesaid amount fixed as annual value by Municipal Corporation. As against this the assessee received total rent of ₹ 22,25,200/- which is much higher than the municipal valuation. Thus, same is to be treated as “standard rent” for the property in question.
So far as different rent fetched from different tenants is concerned it is suffice to say that area as well as terms of both the tenants were different and distinguishable in features. Rent received from M/s Axis Bank cannot be the basis of determining the rent from M/s Tanushaka Automobiles Pvt Ltd. Moreover, the property did not consist of different units. It was a compact property some part of which was let out to one tenant and some part to other. Thus, the annual value of the said property was to be considered as a single unit as is done by the Municipal Corporation. In our opinion there is considerable force in the arguments of the Ld AR.
AO was not justified to make the impugned addition. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue. - decided against revenue
Addition u/s 40A(2)(b) - assessee had received security deposit from other tenant and had given security deposits to others for the premises taken on rent - No interest was either received or paid on such other deposits - Held that:- Before making any disallowance it is to be established that the payment for such expenditure was “excessive or unreasonable” having regard to the “fair market value” for similar expenditure. Unless the expenditure is found excessive or unreasonable it cannot be disallowed. CIT(A) discussed the matter in detail and has deleted the addition after examining the records as well as legal position of disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b). We also find from the records that the interest @ 6% p.a was paid by the assessee to M/s Tanushaka Automobiles Pvt Ltd under a contractual obligation. AO has not doubted the correctness of agreement nor has found it to be frivolous. The rate of interest i.e. 6% p.a too is not found to be excessive comparing to fair market rates. No infirmity in the order of the CIT(Appeals) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer U/s 40A(2)(b) - Decided against revenue.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1760
Levy of penalty u/s 271AAB - undisclosed income disclosed during the search - non specifying the manner in which such undisclosed income has been derived and substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived - nature of penalty provisions as contained in section 271AAB(1)(a) and 271AAB(1)(c) - whether these provisions provide for levy of penalty on account of separate and independent charges or these provision provide for levy of penalty for the same charge under section 271AAB? - Held that:- The provisions of Section 271AAB(1)(a) are pari materia to Section 271AAA(2) so far as it relates to satisfaction of condition whereby it requires specifying the manner of earning of undisclosed income as well as to substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. The legal proposition so laid down in context of section 271AAA(2) thus equally applies in context of section 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act.
On review and examination of above statement of the assessee recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, we find that no specific question(s) were raised to the assessee drawing his attention to the provisions of section 271AAB which require the assessee to specify the manner of earning of undisclosed income as well as to substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. In absence of a specific query raised during the course of search drawing assessee’s attention to the provisions of section 271AAB where the statement of the assessee was recorded u/s 132(4) about the manner in which the undisclosed income has been derived and its substantiation thereof, the AO was not justified in invoking the residuary provisions of clause (c) of section 271AAB(1) instead of clause (a) of section 271AAB(1) of the Act.
The assessee having satisfied the other conditions specified in section 271AAB(1)(a), which remain undisputed, in terms of admission of undisclosed income in the statement recorded u/s 132(4), payment of taxes together with interest, if any in respect of undisclosed income on or before the specified date and declaring the undisclosed income in the return of income for the specified previous year on or before the specified date, we are of the view that the ld CIT(A) has rightly varied the levy of penalty and confirm the levy of penalty @ 10% in terms of section 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act. In the result, we affirm the order of the ld CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee as well as the revenue.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1759
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non specification of charge - defective notice - Held that:- There is no concealment in the present case. The Assessee has also filed all the details during the regular assessment proceedings. From the notice dated 28.12.2011 produced by the Ld. AR during the hearing, it can be seen that the Assessing Officer was not sure under which provisions of Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee is liable for penalty. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s SSA’ Emerald Meadows. [2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SUPREME COURT] - decided in favour of assessee
-
2017 (11) TMI 1758
TPA - Comparable selection - functinal similarity - Held that:- The assessee is engaged in the business of range of software services and also business process/out sourcing services thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list.
The related party transactions filter applied by Revenue for all over comparables at the rated of 25% for selecting comparables will not matter
Only the companies incurring persistent losses ought to be rejected as comparable. Consider the employ cost to sales ratio at the Rate of 25% as filter for selective comparables
Deduction u/s 10A - Held that:- We find that the ITAT for AY 2003-04 has remanded the matter back to the learned AO for verification of quantum of expenditure incurred in respect of reimbursement on account of telecommunication charges (with needs to be adjusted from the export turnover). However, for the subject year under consideration. Accenture, while calculating its export turnover, has suo-moto excluded the reimbursement on account of telecommunication charges.
Deduction on the amounts payable under ISA under Section 37(1) - Held that:- Under the present circumstances of the business, such global arrangement is necessary for the purpose of business. The expenditure incurred for such global arrangement is allowable expenses u/s 37(1) of the Act. In addition to that, we find that the payment of expenditure is at arm’s length determined by the TPO u/s 92CA(3) of the Act. We do not find any substance in the case of the revenue because when an international transaction at arms length as determined by the TPO in the said transaction, it cannot be said that the assessee has paid the prices under the said transaction without obtaining any services. The contention of the revenue is baseless and under the facts and circumstances of the case, the expenditure is incurred for the purpose of business. Therefore, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee.
Upward adjustment in respect of international transaction related to employees share purchase plan (ESPP) expenses - Held that:- CIT(A) has given a categorical finding after examining the relevant material and submission of the assessee that shares were allotted to its employees and not to the employees of the parent company. The expenses incurred by the assessee to motivate and award its employees for their hard work, which amounts salary cost of the assessee company. The expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purpose of business on employees is allowable expenses. The CIT(A) has examined the entire scheme and found that such expenses are business expenses and should be allowable as deduction. Since there is no contrary material to the findings of the CIT(A), in the light of that we confirm the order of CIT(A) on this issue
-
2017 (11) TMI 1757
Levying of interest u/s 215 - advance tax - entitlement for waiver of interest - discretion to the authority to decide whether waiver or reduction has to be granted - Held that:- The authorities having exercised their discretion with relevant material, it is beyond the scope of this court to sit upon their wisdom. It is to be noted that rule 40 is only an enabling provision and the assessee cannot as a matter of right claim waiver of interest or reduction. The guidelines as referred to under rule 40 have to be understood in the mandate of levying of interest under section 215 of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, merely because there is an observation that delay cannot be attributed to the assessee itself, that will not result in waiver of interest. Taking note of the over all facts involved, the authority had given 50 per cent. of reduction of interest. - Petition dismissed.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1756
TPA - exclusion of the comparables WAPSCO and Mahindra Consulting Engineers Ltd. - Held that:- As set out by the Ld. AR and after going through the records, it’s clear that both these companies are functionally different.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Rampgreen [2015 (8) TMI 931 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has set out the ratio that functionally different comparables cannot be taken by the Revenue authorities or by the assessee for TP study. Therefore, these two comparables have to be excluded.
Secondly about the inclusion of Kirloskar Consultants Limited, this company was earlier taken up as comparable in A.Y. 2010-11 which is immediately preceding year. The Revenue cannot take a different stand in one year and another in very next year without any proper reason assigned to the same. The RPT threshold of below 25% is applicable in the present comparable. Therefore, the TPO should have included this comparable.
For working capital the order of the DRP is non speaking and the submissions of the Ld. AR are accepted. As relates to point (d) of the Hon’ble High Court directions, the same has to be taken into proportionate adjustment. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1755
Revision u/s 263 - AO erred in determining the income of the assessee at 10% on estimate basis in respect of godown receipts and hence, directed the AO to redo the assessment by assessing the godown receipts separately in addition to the income from contract receipts - Held that:- Hon' Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT) had held that the AO, on appraisal of the facts and particularly, taking into consideration the undisputed fact that the books were not maintained by the assessee, had adopted the method of estimation of the income and in the process, after taking into consideration the overall material before it, had estimated the income at 7.5% of the gross receipts. The view taken by the AO being a plausible one and even assuming there was another view possible, the CIT(Appeal) could not have invoked the revisional power under Section 263 of the Act, as it is well-settled that such ground is not available for revising the orders. In coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal had examined the material on record and did not accept the argument of the Revenue that the rentals from the godowns are required to be assessed at a higher rate of 12.5%.
AO had opined that renting of the godowns is integral in the business of the assessee and as the decision arrived at by the Tribunal being on appreciation of facts and the reason for invocation of Section 263 being that there is a possibility for estimating the income at a higher rate, without there being a finding of error in the Assessment Order, a resort to Section 263 of the Act cannot be made. Decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1754
Allowability of advertisement expenses - nature of expenses - revenue or capital expenditure - argument of AR that no opportunity whatsoever was given by the AO while making addition - Held that:-Order of the Ld.CIT(A) also reads that it is the contention of the assessee that without affording an opportunity to the assessee to explain the stand in respect of the brand advertisement expense in the light of Franchise Agreement dated 02.04.2010, the AO decided the issue making the addition. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to remand the matter to the file of the AO to verify the stand of the assessee
Addition treating the fully allowable expense as not accrued and crystallized during extant period deduction u/s 43B claimed - Held that:- As against the provision, the assessee made payment of ₹ 95,90,000/- and the tax rates are uniform for the relevant and subsequent assessment years, as such in a tax neutral scenario, it is fair to allow the expenditure for this assessment year. We, therefore, allow this ground of appeal and direct the AO to delete the addition on this count.
Appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1753
Scheme of amalgamation - adherence to accounting treatment - Held that:- Perusal of the scheme shows that the accounting treatment is in conformity with the established accounting standards. In short, there is no apprehension that any of the creditors would lose or be prejudiced if the proposed scheme is sanctioned. The said scheme of amalgamation will not cast any additional burden on the stakeholders and also will not prejudicially affect the interests of the any class of the creditors in any manner. The appointed date of the said scheme is January 1, 2017.
There is no additional requirement for any modification and the said scheme of amalgamation appears to be fair and reasonable and is not contrary to public policy and not violative of any provisions of law. All the statutory requirements of sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 are complied with. Taking into consideration the above facts, the company petition is allowed and the scheme of amalgamation annexed with the petition is hereby sanctioned which shall be binding on the members, creditors of the transferor/transferee companies.
While approving the scheme as above, it is further clarified that this order will not be construed as an order granting exemption from payment of stamp duty or taxes or any other charges, if payable, as per the relevant provisions of law or from any applicable permissions that may have to be obtained, or compliances that may have to be made as per the mandate of law. The companies to the said scheme or other person interested shall be at liberty to apply to this Bench for any direction that may be necessary with regard to the working of the said scheme.
The transferor companies will stand dissolved without winding up from the date of the filing of the certified copy of this order with the Registrar of Companies.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1752
Scheme of amalgamation - Held that:- The copy of the admitted petition contains clauses 1 to 35. Clause 20 of the admitted petition contains material extracts of scheme of amalgamation (i.e., clause 5 to clause 14 of the scheme). Therefore it is to be observed that there is no omission of clauses 15 to 21 of the petition submitted to the Regional Director as observed by the Regional Director in his report. The company has again resubmitted an entire set of company petition with the Regional Director on October 31, 2017.
The observations made by the Regional Director have been explained by the petitioner-company in paragraphs 8 to 10 above. The clarifications and undertakings given by the petitioner-company are accepted by the Tribunal.
From the material on record, the scheme appears to be fair and reasonable and is not violative of any provisions of law including but not limited to the Companies Act, 2013; Income-tax Act, 1961 ; Accounting Standards and various other applicable statutory acts and is not contrary to public policy.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1751
Bail Application - allegations of corruption and amassing of unaccounted money - Held that:- Taking into account the nature of allegation levelled against the applicant and the prosecution case as stated in the F.I.R. and charge-sheet submitted in the case shows an organized crime committed by the accused persons causing huge financial loss to NOIDA Authority and misuse of public money in collusion with the public servants posted in the NOIDA Authority at the relevant point of time, the prayer for bail of the applicant is refused.
There is no good ground for grant of bail to the applicant Pradeep Garg - bail application dismissed.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1750
Rectification of mistake - Mistake apparent from record - corporate guarantee has been held to be an international transaction - Held that:- We find that the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Siro Clinpharm Private Ltd (2016 (5) TMI 633 - ITAT MUMBAI) has considered all the above arguments of the Revenue to hold that the corporate guarantee cannot be treated as an international transaction prior to the amended provision of u/s 92B of the IT Act with effect from 01-04-2012 i.e from the A.Y 2013-14 onwards. Further, it is also seen for the A.Ys 2009-10 and 2010-11, the assessee had raised the ground that the corporate guarantee is not covered under the definition of international transaction u/s 92B of the IT Act, as ground of appeal No. 12 before us. In view of the same, we agree that there is a mistake apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal for the A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11 in confirming the corporate guarantee fee at 0.50% - decided against revenue
............
|
9911796707
