|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 1677 Records
-
2016 (9) TMI 1383
Penalty - non-performance/non-compliance of Past Performance Entitlement - the decision in the case of Eveline International Versus Union of India [2014 (9) TMI 1134 - DELHI HIGH COURT] contested, where it was held that to enable the appellant to succeed on the said plea, it was incumbent upon the appellant to establish that the shortfall was only in quota items of US 338 and not in other quota of different countries code but which the appellant had failed to do and thus the said plea could not be believed - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - SLP dismissed.
-
2016 (9) TMI 1382
Benefit of Section 11 and 12 - amendment to sec 12A(2) - Retrospectivity - whether payment of Education Extension Services to the Diocese of Jalandhar, notified U/s 10(23C)(vi), as well as registered U/s. 12A of the Act and persuing the object of prompting education through running various schools, can be regarded as application of income? - Held that:- The first proviso to section 12A(2) of the Act is applicable retrospectively. Likewise, for the same reasoning, it is also held, regarding the second batch of appeals, that even the second proviso to Section 12A(2) is retrospective in nature and the completed assessments in these cases ought not to have been reopened only for non-registration for the relevant assessment years.
Whether the assessment proceeding "pending before the Assessing Officer", as stated in the first proviso to Section 12A(2) can be taken as "pending in appeal"? - Held that:- This issue also stands answered in favour of the assessee by Shree Bhanushali Mitra Mandal Trust [2016 (4) TMI 578 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] wherein, it was held that appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings and assessment proceedings pending before an appellate authority should be deemed to be "assessment proceedings pending before the Assessing Officer" within the meaning of Section 12A. Accordingly, it is held that the appellate proceedings before the appellate authorities are deemed to be assessment proceedings pending before the Assessing Officer
Whether payment of Education Extension Services to the Diocese of Jalandhar, notified U/s 10(23C)(vi), as well as registered U/s. 12A of the Act and persuing the object of prompting education through running various schools, can be regarded as application of income - Held that:- ere, it is not in dispute that the Diocese of Jalandhar is not only registered U/s 12A of the Act, it is also notified U/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. Besides, for A.Ys. 2007-08 to-2013-14, vide orders passed U/s 143(3) of the Act (copies on record), its stands taken note of that the Diocese of Jalandhar is running various schools and that exemption U/ss. 11 and 12 of the Act has been allowed with regard to its income. Therefore, it has wrongly been held in the impugned order that the payment of education extension services made by the assessee to the Diocese of Jalandhar out of the current year income, as is also available from the income and expenditure account of the relevant financial years, is not allowable as application of income.
The restriction/embargo in donation by one charitable Trust to another is only restricted to accumulations made in excess of 15% of income of the Trust, as referred to in Section 11(2) of the Act; and that the said prohibition does not apply, to current year income, or even to accumulations up to 15% U/s. 11(l)(a) of the Act.
It may be reiterated that the Diocese of Jalandhar stands notified U/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. This provision, it may be noted, is applicable to universities and educational institutions, which exist solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit. Neither the assessment order/s of the assessee/s, nor the assessment order/s of the Diocese of Jalandhar, carry any finding of the Diocese of Jalandhar pursuing religious objects. Merely having religious objects does not amount to pursuing religious objects, It is the actual objects perused and the actual activities undertaken, which are of consequence so far as regards our present purposes.
Therefore, it cannot be denied that the Diocese of Jalandhar is engaged solely in pursuing the object of education. It runs various schools. Hence, it is but a charitable institution pursuing objects which are similar to those of the assessee. That being so, the amount paid to the Diocese of Jalandhar being out of the current year income and not out of accumulated income, such payment of education extension services to the Diocese of Jalandhar is to be allowed as application of the income. It is so ordered.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that (1) the subsequent grant of registration in all the cases respectively operates retrospectively for all the years under consideration; and (2) payment of education extension services to the Diocese of Jalandhar is application of income, duly satisfying the provisions of Sections 11(l)(a) and 11(3)(d) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (9) TMI 1381
Addition of un-explained credit in opening balance - Held that:- Since the partners have contributed the amount in the earlier year which was already accepted, an amount of ₹ 5 Lakhs cannot be considered as ‘discrepancy’ in this year. With reference to the amount of ₹ 79,312/- collected from various subscribers, this has come in for adjustment in various chit subscriptions account, therefore, as per the Books, the chits subscription amount was at ₹ 25,93,234/-. But in the final statements it was ₹ 25,93,234/-. Since these amounts have been reconciled/reconcilable, addition is not warranted. After considering the explanation of assessee and examining the record, we are of the opinion that the addition cannot be sustained. The explanation is proper as per the final accounts submitted to the department not only this year but also in earlier year. In view of this, ground of assessee is allowed.
Un-explained credit in the accounts of partners - Held that:- We are unable to understand how the AO could make addition of ₹ 10 Lakhs, when he himself gives a finding that there is neither cash introduction in Cash Book nor there is a ledger account in the Books of Account, so relied upon by him. The addition u/s. 68 is not warranted as there is no such credit in ‘books of account’. Be that as it may, assessee in the final accounts has shown ₹ 2 Lakhs credit in the name of each of the partners and has filed the returns in their individual capacities admitting the cash credits. The AO could have verified these in the individual hands but not in the firm’s hands. Therefore, CIT(A)’s order is correct not only on facts but also on law. There is no merit in Revenue’s ground, accordingly the same is dismissed.
Disallowance of salary paid to one of the partners Shri K. Mohan Reddy - Held that:- The disallowance is not warranted. First of all, the statement recorded u/s. 131 clearly indicates that Shri Mohan Reddy is aware about his partnership in the firm and admits that he is responsible as a partner for all affairs of the firm. In fact, Question No. 3 itself asks him about the ‘active role in the day-to-day affairs of the chit fund’ for which he replied that he has no active role as it was looked after by Shri A. Venkatesh. This answer given to a specific question does not mean that he is not a working partner. Managing Partner and Working Partner have different roles. As seen from the P&L A/c an amount of ₹ 54,000/- was paid as salaries to partners and three of the five partners are getting ₹ 18,000/- each. Only the salary paid to Shri Mohan Reddy was disallowed on the basis of so called statement. We do not agree with the observation of the AO as the disallowance has no basis. AO is directed to allow the amount as claimed. Ground is allowed.
Unexplained credit towards excess liabilities in the Books - Held that:- After considering the rival contentions, considering that Books of Account are not complete even though they are impounded after three years of closure of the accounting year, the reconciliation given by assessee was not correctly appreciated by the AO or CIT(A). Since the final accounts are tallying, the so called discrepancies on the basis of incomplete Books cannot lead to an addition that too, when assessee was explaining that both the assets and liabilities are to be reconciled. Considering the reconciliation filed by assessee before the CIT(A), we are of the opinion that there is no need for any addition on this account.
Addition of suppression of income - Held that:- The so called discrepancies between Books and entries in the final statements on the Liabilities side, there was a difference of ₹ 450/- in the dividend payable account. On the Assets side, there is no discrepancy on this account but in the income on chits, there is a discrepancy of ₹ 1203.99, as per the AO in the table provided. Instead of reconciling dividend payable and dividend on chit accounts and further without verifying the final statements, the AO has arrived at the so called discrepancy. It is not an addition of short computation of dividend income but net of dividend, miscellaneous income and penalties. As far as miscellaneous income is concerned, in the final accounts, assessee offered ₹ 57,123/- as income, whereas in the Books, it was only ₹ 33,510/-, thereby a negative figure of ₹ 23,613/- was arrived at in the table. In fact, assessee has offered higher income in the final statements. Since AO has not verified the final statements and his so called discrepancies are based on incomplete Books of Account, we do not see any reason to confirm the net discrepancy so arrived at by the AO.
Inflation of expenditure - disallowance as as suppression/inflation of expenditure by listing out in the table under the head ‘expenditure’ - Held that:- We are surprised that AO even after reconciling the amount as noted down the last column of the table thought it fit to disallow the amount. Considering the very same explanation, we are of the opinion that no disallowance is called for as the so called discrepancies arose because of comparisons under taken on the basis of incomplete Books of Account and final statements. There cannot be any inflation of expenditure, when all the expenditures were correctly claimed by assessee in the final statements. Ground of assessee is allowed.
Disallowance of part of expenses of partners sitting fees - excess payment of interest to partners of ₹ 13,300/- and sitting fee - Held that:- We are unable to understand how the interest at 12% of ₹ 1,59,600/- can be disallowed. As seen from the final statements, the entire interest on partner’s capital claimed was only ₹ 51,800/- and the amount claimed in the P&L A/c was ₹ 51,800/- only. How an amount of ₹ 1,59,600/- could be disallowed is not explainable. Therefore, we do not find any reason to confirm the addition so made, based on the so called entries in the partners’ sitting fee account in cash imprest maintained by Managing Partner. However, with reference to the disallowance of ₹ 15,791/- considered to be miscellaneous expenditure, we confirm the disallowance as the interest for business purposes is not explained. Therefore, while confirming the amount of ₹ 15,791/-, assessee gets relief of ₹ 1,59,600/-. Ground is partly allowed.
Discrepancy in depreciation claim and donation - Held that:- As far as claim of depreciation is concerned, same was disallowed on the basis of incomplete Books of Account without considering the final statements. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there cannot be any disallowance, so long as the final statements have not been examined properly by the AO. As far as donation is concerned, considering the nature of the amount, we uphold the disallowance.
-
2016 (9) TMI 1380
CENVAT credit - input services - freight charges incurred for transportation of goods exported - denial on account of nexus - whether the service tax paid on freight charges incurred for transportation of goods up to the port of export is covered under the definition of input services in terms of Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004? - Held that: - In the case of export transaction where FOB price is the consideration, the goods have to be delivered on board the vessel which means the place of delivery is the port of shipment. Therefore, the place of removal automatically extends up to the port of shipment when the goods are to be delivered on board the vessel. If that is so, the cost of transportation from the factory to the port of shipment will automatically become part of the value of the goods and whatever services have been availed up to that point would become input services - the appellants are legally entitled for the Cenvat credit of service tax paid on GTA services utilized for transportation of the export goods from the factory to the port of shipment - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (9) TMI 1379
Natural justice - ex-parte order - case of petitioner is that respondent has granted only five days time to file their objections to the pre-revision notice dated 08.08.2016 and for circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner, they could not submit their objections within the time - Held that: - similar issue decided in appellant's own case Mathi Diesel Service represented by its Proprietor, M. Sugavaneswaran Versus Commercial Tax Officer, Salem Town West Circle, Salem [
2016 (9) TMI 1378 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that fifteen days would be a reasonable time to submit the objections.
The petitioner is directed to treat the impugned Assessment Order dated 30.08.2016 as a Show Cause Notice and submit their objections within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondent shall re-do the assessment - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (9) TMI 1378
Natural Justice - validity of assessment order - petitioner's case is that they have not provided with adequate opportunity to submit their objections - Held that: - It cannot be disputed that but for the surprise inspection conducted, the alleged suppression would have given unnoticed. Therefore, the respondent was justified in issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner proposing to revise the assessment - However, the respondent could have granted 15 days time to the petitioner instead of five days as five days is a very short period for the petitioner to submit their objections, especially in cases where it is a revision of assessment.
This Court would direct the petitioner to treat the impugned proceedings as a show cause notice and submit their objection within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (9) TMI 1377
Deduction u/s.80IC on Baddi Unit - profit attributable to marketing division and brand value to be disallowed or not - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case for A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09 [2016 (7) TMI 383 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] CIT(A) while deciding the issue in favour of assessee has given a finding that there was no marketing division and, therefore, there was no transfer of goods from eligible to non-eligible undertaking and in the absence of marketing division being a separate undertaking, no profit could be attributed to the marketing activity.
With respect to brand value, the ld.CIT(A) has given finding that the same is owned by the foreign collaborator and there cannot be any profit attributable to brand. He has further given a finding that AO had quantified the gross profit attributable to marketing and brand value and disallowance and that since deduction u/s.80IC is claimed in respect of net profit and, therefore, disallowing gross profit attributable to marketing and brand value is not correct and that further, since the marketing expenses debited to the Profit & Loss Account are more than gross profit computed by the AO, that there cannot be any disallowance of deduction u/s.80IC - Decided in favour of assessee
Addition of excess interest expenses debited by assessee in accounts of Gujarat Unit - Held that:- Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, discussed therein that H.P. Unit had sufficient reserves and surplus to meet its liability. In fact, First Appellate Authority has not only confirmed this but has also observed that the H.P. Unit had advanced surplus money to the Gujarat Unit in A.Y. 2008-09. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, we are not inclined to interfere in the finding of CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the addition made on account of excess interest expenses of ₹ 172.42 lacs debited by assessee in the accounts of Gujarat Unit. - Decided in favour of assessee
Addition u/s.145A - Held that:- Regarding this provision in respect of A.Y. 1999-2000, being the first year after the insertion of section 145 A of the Act, there is difference of opinion as to whether only closing stock had to be adjusted or whether all the three elements namely, purchases, sale and inventory are to be adjusted to include the element of VAT. In respect of all the subsequent assessment years the ratio laid down is that all the three items namely, purchases, sale and the inventory (as mentioned in 145A of the Act) are to be adjusted to include element of VAT. Effectively, such an exercise is revenue – neutral. So, in this background, CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition in question. This reasoned factual finding of CIT(A) in above legal background needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same.- Decided in favour of assessee
-
2016 (9) TMI 1376
Penalty U/s 271(1)(c) - bogus purchases - defective notice - assessee has concealed its income and has filed inaccurate particulars of income - assessee submitted that the notice issued for penalty was vague and the necessary particulars have not been provided in the notice - separate enquiries/proceedings claim - Held that:- Sec 274 of the Act provides the procedure for imposing the penalty. A bare reading of the provision postulates that the penalty under the chapter shall not be made unless the assessee has been earned or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. As noticed hereinabove in the penalty order, the assessee was called upon to file the reply, thereafter the assessee was also called upon in the personal hearing. The assessee was given opportunity to represent his case before the ld Assessing Officer at the time of finalization of penalty and after giving the reasonable opportunity to the assessee, the penalty order was passed by the ld Assessing Officer. Therefore, also, in our view, there was no violation of the procedure as laid down U/s 274 of the Act.
On merit, we find that the assessee was deriving income from trading of precious and semi precious stones and in the quantum proceedings, the Assessing Officer enquired about the correctness of the purchases made by the applicant and after following a due process, the Assessing Officer enquired from the assessee about the purchases made from three parties discussed in detail in paragraph No. 1 of the assessment order, but the assessee failed to produce the parties. The Assessing Officer thereafter, tried to examine the said parties after issuing the summons but the summons returned unserved as the concerned parties were non-existent. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer made enquiries by sending the Inspector but the addresses give by the assessee was not found. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had treated the purchases as bogus and disallowed 25% of such purchases by invoking the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act. The same was confirmed in the appeal by the ld. CIT(A). No appeal was filed before the Tribunal.
Thus the separate enquiries/proceedings were not required to be conducted by the Assessing Officer at the stage of penalty as the assessee, has failed to discharge the initial onus of proving the genuineness of the parties from whom the said three bills were issued at the assessment stage or before the appellate stage. In our view, no separate proceedings were required at the stage of determining the penalty against the assessee in the penalty proceedings - Decided against assessee.
-
2016 (9) TMI 1375
Eligibility to registration under Section 12A(1)(aa) and approval under section 80G(5)(vi) - Held that:-Whether or not the objects of trust are charitable in nature and since the Trust was formed on 27.06.2014 and the application for registration was made on 07.05.2015, though the activities commenced to some extent, there were less as such it is not open for the CIT to go into the quantitative aspect of the activities of the Trust Charitable objects of the t rust are not disputed by the Learned CIT. As submitted that so long as there is no dispute as to the objects of the trust, what is to be seen at the time of granting registration by the learned CIT is only whether the objects of the trust are charitable and activities carried out are genuine in nature.
Respectfully following the judicial reasoning, we direct the ld. CIT to grant registration to the assessee-Trust under section 12AA of the Act and also to grant exemption certified under section 80G of the Act . Appeals of the assessee are allowed.
-
2016 (9) TMI 1374
Reopening of assessment - addition u/s 68 - claim of the assessee of short term capital gain - Held that:- At the original assessment stage, assessee declared short term capital gain and the Assessing Officer after raising specific query in this regard and considering facts and material on record, accepted the claim of the assessee of short term capital gain under section 143(3) dated 06.05.2008. There is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and correctly the material facts necessary for assessment, therefore, it is a case of mere change of opinion for initiating re-assessment proceedings. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (9) TMI 1373
Maintainability of appeal - monetary limit - Held that:- It is not in dispute that the total tax factor is less than ₹ 20,00,000/- in each of these appeals and that they do not fall within anyone of the exceptions. As such, present appeals stand disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
-
2016 (9) TMI 1372
Penalty u/s 11AC read with Rule 25 of CER, 2002 - the entire demand and interest was already paid - Held that: - on perusal of Section 11A (2B) of the CEA, 1944, it is found that since the entire amount of differential duty was paid, and intimation was given by the appellant assesse to the Department vide their letter dated 8/5/2008 and 31/7/2008, the SCN dated 19/03/2009 was not required to be issued - it has not been proved by the authorities below that the appellant had suppressed material facts from the department with an intent to evade payment of duty - there is no justification for imposition of penalty - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (9) TMI 1371
Parameters laid down for testing of samples under the Food Safety Regulations - validity of test report - whether rejection report is the outcome of non-application of mind? - provision of testing of aluminium content - Held that:- The submission made is not well founded for the reason that the parameters laid down for testing of samples under the Food Safety Regulations could at best considered as illustrative and general parameters and in the process of testing, if the Scientific Officer comes to know that there are certain other components in the samples then he has the duty to report the same in his report. This is what precisely the third respondent has done and submitted the report. The product which is imported by the petitioner is Cocoa Powder which is one of the main ingredient in the manufacture of Chocolates and confectionery items which is being done by the petitioner and they are one of the major players in the market. It cannot be disputed that 90% of the consumers of these confectionery items and chocolates are young children. Therefore, utmost care and caution should be exercises while testing such food products.
This Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot examine the validity of test report when there are no other malafides alleged against the Officers who have done the testing. Thus, merely because the third respondent has reported the presence of “heavy metal-Aluminium” in the samples, that by itself cannot vitiate the report by stating that he ought not to have examined the metal content in the samples as the general parameters do not provide for the same. In fact, even as per the general parameters in Regulation 2.11.6 of Food Safety & Standards (Food Product Standards & Food Additives) Regulations, 2011, metal contaminants can be examined for contents of contaminated metals like Lead, Copper, Arsenic, Mercury, Methyl Mercury, Tin, Zinc, Cadmium. Therefore, merely because of non-mentioning of the Aluminium as one of the metal contaminant cannot be a reason to vitiate the impugned test report. Thus the petitioner has not made out any case for interference.
-
2016 (9) TMI 1370
Refund of SAD - time limitation - Held that: - where the payment of Special Additional Due (SAD) and refund was involved, statutory interdicts could not be varied or altered by mere executive instructions and circulars - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2016 (9) TMI 1369
Issues:
Petition under Section 391 read with Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 for sanction of Scheme of Amalgamation.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a petition filed under Section 391 read with Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking approval for the Scheme of Amalgamation of multiple companies with another entity. The petitioner had previously filed an application seeking dispensation of meetings of Equity Shareholders and Unsecured Creditors, citing that their consent had been obtained in writing. The Court had directed dispensation of these meetings in an earlier order. The petitioner's advocate was heard, and the petition was admitted for further proceedings.
The Court ordered notices to be issued to the Central Government through the Regional Director and to the Official Liquidator. The Official Liquidator was directed to appoint a Chartered Accountant for preparing and submitting a report at the petitioner's cost. Additionally, the Court ordered the publication of the notice of the petition hearing in specific newspapers with circulation in Ahmedabad. The petitioner was allowed to publish a common public notice along with other involved companies, and the publication in the Government Gazette was dispensed with.
The final hearing of the petition was scheduled for a specific date, providing a timeline for the conclusion of the legal process. The judgment demonstrates the procedural aspects involved in seeking approval for an amalgamation scheme under the Companies Act, emphasizing the importance of obtaining necessary consents and fulfilling publication requirements as mandated by law.
-
2016 (9) TMI 1368
Scheme of Amalgamation - Held that:- All the equity shareholders of the applicant company as on date have approved the scheme in form of written consent letters. All these consent letters are annexed with the application as Exh:D. There are no secured and/or unsecured creditors of the applicant company. The certificates confirming the status of the shareholders and creditors as well as the receipt of consent letters from all the shareholders are annexed collectively as Exh:E. In view of the same, dispensation is sought from convening the meeting of the equity shareholders of the applicant company and considering the facts, circumstances and the submissions, the same is hereby granted.
-
2016 (9) TMI 1367
Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - claim made under section 80HHB - bonafide and inadvertent error - Held that:- The assessee has furnished all the details of expenditure as well as income in its return for assessment. There was no finding of the assessing authority that any of the details supplied by the assessee in its return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. It is an admitted fact that only on the inadvertent mistake of the Chartered Accountant, the assessee has made a claim under section 80HHB of the Act. Apart from the assessee, even the Assessing Officer who framed the original assessment order made a mistake in overlooking the contents of the tax audit report and the tax audit report suggest that there is no question of the assessee concealing its income. There is also no question of the assessee furnishing any inaccurate particulars.
All that happened in the present case is that through a bonafide and inadvertent error, the C.A. failed to note the ceiling in respect of amount credited by the assessee to foreign project reserve account while computing the deduction under section 80HHB of the Act, that by itself would not, in our considered opinion, attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Our above view has been duly fortified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Private Ltd vs. CIT (2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT ) - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (9) TMI 1366
Clubs or Association Service - The appellant rebutted the allegation in the show cause notice on the ground that the nature of activities undertaken by the appellant is in the nature of charitable purposes and in view of the constitution of the club, it cannot be treated as different from the members and there would not be two persons to provide and receive service - Held that: - the appellant is a Members Club and not a Proprietary Club and in a Members Club there is no question of two sides, Members and Club, both are same entity. There should be existence of two sides/entities for having transaction as against consideration - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (9) TMI 1365
Assessments under section 153A - proof of incriminating material found during the course of search - transactions reflected in the Bank account of the assessee with HSBC, Geneva, Switzerland - Held that:- There was no incriminating material found during the course of search in relation to the transactions reflected in the Bank account of the assessee with HSBC, Geneva, Switzerland and since the assessments for both the years under consideration had become final before the initiation of search, no additions on account of the said transactions or income arising therefrom were permissible in the assessments completed under section 153 of the Act.
The additions as finally made to the total income of the assessee on account of transactions reflected in the Bank account of the assessee with HSBC, Geneva, Switzerland and income relating thereto for both the years under consideration are beyond the scope of section 153A as the assessments for the said years had become final prior to the date of search and there was no incriminating material found during the course of search to support and substantiate the said addition. The said additions made for both the years under consideration are, therefore, deleted allowing the relevant grounds of the assessee’s appeals.
Channelizing undisclosed money through Bank account - source of monies deposited in HSBC Bank Account was his undisclosed money - Held that:- We find that this issue has become infructuous or academic as a result of the decision rendered by us on the preliminary issue raised in these appeals, holding that the additions made to the total income of the assessee on account of the income arising from the relevant transactions reflected in the HSBC Account are not sustainable in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search to support and substantiate the same. We, therefore, do not consider it necessary or expedient to adjudicate upon this issue on merit.
Penalty imposed under section 271( 1)(c) also cancelled.
-
2016 (9) TMI 1364
Scope of SCN - Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES)- The impugned order concurred with the finding of the original authority that an inquiry was already underway and, relying upon correspondences of July, 2010, August, 2011 and June, 2012, held them ineligible to participate in the declaration scheme - scope of SCN - Circular No. 174/9/2013-ST - Held that: - It is seen that the show cause notice has been issued well after the deadline stipulated in the circular. The notice does not make any reference to a summons but only to a statement. It would appear that, in order to avoid rejection on frivolous grounds, the requirement of citing a summons or any document specifying the authority and specific information has been prescribed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
............
|
9911796707
