Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2017 2017 (10) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 321 to 340 of 1666 Records

• 2017 (10) TMI 1349
  

  Re-computation of the capital gains under Section 153A - Held that:- ITAT, following the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kabul Chawla [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] set aside the assessment.

  This Court is of the opinion that no question of law, substantial or otherwise, arises for consideration because the ITAT has merely followed the ratio in Kabul Chawla (supra).

  ---

• 2017 (10) TMI 1348
  

  Reduction of the share capital - Held that:- As mentioned by the Applicant Company that the process of reduction of capital has been initiated in Board Meeting dated 05.10.2016 wherein, M/s. P. Pattabiramen & Co., Chartered Accountants were appointed to value the shares of the 1st Respondent Company. Therefore, the SEBI circular dated 10.10.2016 cannot be made applicable retrospectively. It has also been mentioned that on different dates three letters have been sent to NSE i.e., 13.10.2016, 11.11.2016 and 08.12.2016. The company has not received any objections from NSE to the proposed exit offer given. Then, as per the Order of this Bench, private notice was also sent to NSE and SEBI. The soft copy of the above notice was sent by the Applicant Company through e-mail to NSE and reply has been sent by NSE on 18.08.2017 stating that they have no comments to offer. In other words, the reply of the NSE refers that they do not have any objection to the methodology of exit opportunity given by the 1st Respondent Company.

  In the light of the above, it is quite clear that the proposal for the reduction of the share capital is not contrary to any regulations or the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. It is not for the court to suspect the correctness or bonafides of the valuation report as long as there is no inherent defect or other vitiating factor in the valuation and it is well settled principle that court must not sit in judgment over the commercial wisdom of Directors. In view of this, the objections raised by the Objectors are devoid of merits, and the same are rejected. Therefore, we allow the Application for reduction of the share capital of the Company. We confirm the reduction of share capital of Applicant Company

  ---

• 2017 (10) TMI 1347
  

  100% EOU - benefit of N/N. 23/2003-C.E., dated 31-3-2003 - benefit of drawback on the duty paid on the indigenously procured inputs - Held that: - There is no merit in the present appeal - Admission is refused and the civil appeal is dismissed.

  ---

• 2017 (10) TMI 1346
  

  Recovery of Dues - priority of debt - registration of security interest - letter vide reference No. A7/119/2014, dated 04.04.2017 - Gazette Notification No. EG No. 190/2016, dated 06.12.2016.

  Held that:- After the registration of security interest, the debts due to any secured creditor shall be paid in priority over all other debts and all revenues, taxes, cesses, etcetera - It is not in dispute that the assets, over which security interest is created by way of registration originally in favour of the Andhra Bank which was later assigned to the petitioner, are still standing in the name of respondent No.3 / the guarantors. Therefore, the question of Section 26-E of the Act being prospective or retrospective does not arise as regards the assets, which remained intact without being sold by any creditor as on the date of coming into force of the said provision. Therefore, the petitioner has priority over all other debts including revenues, taxes, cesses, etcetera payable to the Central or State Governments or local authorities.

  The demand made by respondents 1 and 2, impugned in this Writ Petition, is declared as illegal and unenforceable - petition allowed.

  ---

• 2017 (10) TMI 1345
  

  The following question of law arises for consideration: -

  “Whether in the facts and circumstances, the ITAT was correct in holding that amounts received as incentive from Engine Manufacturers by the assessee were capital in nature?”

  So far as second question is concerned, the Court notes that an identical issue was decided by another Division Bench by this Court in CIT v. Jetlite India Ltd. [2015 (11) TMI 304 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. Therefore, the said question does not arise.

  ---

• 2017 (10) TMI 1344
  

  Eligibility for deduction u/s 10AA - surplus amount in the freight export account and in the insurance export as derived from export activities - whether ITAT has failed to appreciate the fact as brought on record by the Assessing Officer regarding disallowance of deduction u/s 10AA of deemed profit of ₹ 5021944/- not eligible for deduction u/s 10AA? - Held that:- There is no evidence demonstrating the existence of any arrangement between the assessee company and M/s Dwarka Jewels aimed at producing more than normal profit in the hands of the assessee company. Hence, the action of the authorities in invoking provisions of section 10AA(9) read with section 80IA(10) cannot be sustained. In the result, the consequent additions made by the Assessing Officer and partly upheld by the ld. CIT(A) is hereby deleted. In the results, grounds taken by the assessee are allowed and ground of the revenue is dismissed.

  Briefly the facts of the case are that the ld. A.O. disallowed the deduction u/s 10AA in respect of the amount comprising surplus of freight, Insurance charges and Misc. Balances w/off on the allegation that the same constituted indirect income not derived from export of goods.

  Next question that arises for consideration is the definition of export turnover which has been defined in explanation 1 to section 10AA of the Act and whether the same would have any effect in the instant case. The term “export turnover” has been defined as consideration in respect of export by the undertaking, being article or thing received in or brought into India by the assessee but doesn’t include freight, telecommunication charges or insurance attributable to the delivery of the articles or things outside India. In our view, the same may not have any effect as where the freight or insurance charges are reduced from the export turnover, the same have to be reduced from the total turnover as well. The same has been the consistent stand of the various Coordinate Benches.

  Thus we donot find any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) and confirm the allowance of exemption under section 10AA in respect of freight and insurance excess receipts. On parity of reason, the same position would hold good for misc balances written off. In the result, the ground no.1 of the revenue is dismissed. - We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. - No substantial question of law

  ---

• 2017 (10) TMI 1343
  

  Period of limitation available with the Assessing Officer for completing the assessment - Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 should be completed within 9 months from the end of the financial year of Tribunal's Remand Order i.e. upto 31/12/2010 disregarding the specific provision u/s. 153(3) of the Act? - Held that:- The quoted portion of the Tribunal's earlier order would make it clear that the Assessing Officer was required to pass a fresh order of assessment. Such assessment of course had to be done bearing in mind the observations made by the Tribunal. Nevertheless, it was an order of assessment which would be passed afresh. The Commissioner and the Tribunal, therefore, committed no error. In somewhat similar situation, this Court in case of Instruments And Control Co. vs. Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax and Others reported in [2012 (7) TMI 694 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] expressed the same opinion.

  Disallowance of interest - bank interest is 14% whereas the assessee claimed the interest @22% - Held that:- In any case, the issue is predominantly factual in nature. The assessee had borrowed funds from its sister concerns and paid interest at the rate of 22% which was found to be excessive as compared to the prevailing bank rates. The Commissioner as well as the Tribunal on an analysis of facts on record come to the conclusion that disallowance of interest expenditure was not justified.

  ---

• 2017 (10) TMI 1342
  

  Non deduction of TDS u/s.194C(2) - freight payments to the subcontractors above ₹ 50,000/- was to be disallowed as per Section 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- AO’s action for disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) totally unlawful and unjustified as the assessee not liable to deduct TDS u/s 194C(2) of the income tax act as (I) First year of tax audit u/s 44AB of the income tax act (Previous year assessee was not liable to tax audit because of permissible limit of gross receipts ₹ 40 Lacs), (ii) Discharging of liability for obtaining form no. 151 before making the payment to sub contractor against freight to 50 parties in compliance of provision of section 194C(2) for non deduction of TDS. The delay in submission of form no. 15J to the competent authority is a procedural formality, (iii) Not bringing any material, oral or written agreement between the assessee in the recipients of goods for transportation on record during the assessment proceeding to prove the relation of sub contract and (iv) The payment to the subcontractor has not been doubted by the AO.

  There was no contract between the assessee and the recipients of goods for transportation 2.If the assessee has obtained form no. 15-I then it is substantial compliance of the provision of section 194C. Hence, hereby delete the total disallowance made u/s 40(a) (ia) of the income tax act for non compliance of provision of section 194C (2) of the income tax act. Hereby delete the total disallowance made u/s 40(a) (ia) of the income tax act for non compliance of provision of section 194C (2) of the income tax act. - Decided in favour of the assessee and against the department.

  ---

• 2017 (10) TMI 1340
  

  Revision u/s 263 - Disallowance under Section 14A - Held that:- As decided in The Commissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur v. Paul John [2010 (1) TMI 646 - KERALA HIGH COURT] we are of the view that the proviso to Section 14A is intended to provide finality for concluded assessments where deductions for earning exempted income would have been allowed and therefore unless the proviso applies to Commissioner of Income tax as well, the purpose of the proviso will be defeated. Further, in our view, the bar against the assessing officer passing an order enhancing the assessment stated in the proviso takes in an order which the Officer may have to pass pursuant to the direction issued by the Commissioner under Section 263.

  the assessing officer has the authority to increase the liability of the assessee pursuant to orders issued under Section 263 by the Commissioner and pursuant to orders of enhancement which the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) can issue under Section 251(1) (a) while deciding the appeal tiled by the assessee. We therefore hold that the proviso to Section 14A prohibits all situations where the Officer is otherwise entitled or required to revise an assessment which includes orders issued by the Commissioner under Section 263 or order of enhancement issued by the CIT (Appeals) in exercise of his power above referred - decided in favour of assessee

  ---

• 2017 (10) TMI 1339
  

  Addition to the profit on sale of the Pent House - block assessment under Section 158BB - Held that:- Although in the initial part, it is stated that during the course of search, certain loose papers numbered as 1 to 27 inventorised as ORF 67 were found and that, page 16 of the set of loose papers is page No.2 of an agreement entered into by Shri Jamaluddin for purchase of 1711 sq. ft. of City Centre space @ ₹ 5,000/- per Sq. Ft. in the latter part of the same paragraph, it is stated that the incriminating documents found during the course of survey and the statement of Shri V. Muneer constituted any other material in possession of the AO. In order to reconcile the apparent contradictions in what is stated in the assessment order, the learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue wanted us to read the words “survey” as “search”.

  This plea is raised for the first time and, therefore, cannot be accepted.

  Even if it is assumed that it was during the search that ORF 67 was recovered and that the page 2 of an agreement is part thereof, according to us, that case of the Revenue raised for the first time is not substantiated in any manner. Annexure-B is the Panchanama prepared at the time of search on 29.01.2003. ORF 67 is concerned, in the Panchanama, it is stated that ORF 67 consists of “loose sheets containing statement of accounts, Serial Nos.1 to 23”. Therefore, the Mahazar prepared at the time of search does not record that ORF 67 included page 2 of an agreement as stated in the Assessment Order or as contended before this Court.

  Now we shall refer to Annexure-A, which is the letter dated 03.12.2004 sent by the Assessing Officer to the assessee. In this letter, it is stated that among the undisclosed income allegedly earned by the assessee, one of the items is the undisclosed sale price of City Centre space in the case of Shri Jamaluddin and Shri V. Muneer and that one of the items is “undisclosed sale price of City Centre Space in the case of Shri Jamaluddin and Shri V. Muneer ₹ 51 lakhs during the financial year 2002-03”. Thereafter, it is again stated that “the above are evidenced from seized documents ORF-6, 8, 10, 14, 15, 27, 28, 40, 159 and impounded documents from the premises of Shri Abdul Salam and Shri Jamaludeen.” Therefore, if what the Assessing Officer stated in Annexure-A is read, the incriminating documents leading to the undisclosed income in question were recovered at the time of survey and the list of aforesaid seized documents does not include ORF 67 and if Annexure-B is read, the incriminating material was not revealed from ORF 67. Therefore, Annexures-A and B are contradictory to each other.

  ---

• 2017 (10) TMI 1338
  

  Assessee upheld to be local authority - exemption from income tax to the local authority - whether Appellant is not a ‘local authority’ as contemplated u/s 10(20)? - Held that:- As decided in THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR VERSUS URBAN IMPROVMENT TRUST [2018 (4) TMI 192 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] it is true that the functions which are carried out by the assessee are statutory functions and carry on for the benefit of the State Government for urban development therefore, in our considered opinion, the functions carried out by the authority is a supreme function and fall within the activity of the State Government.

  The reliance placed by counsel for the department regarding 10(20) and explanation A will not make any difference. Taking into consideration income of authority is under constitution of India vide order enacted either for the purpose of dealing with or setting up the housing scheme for the purpose of planning and development of the improvement of the cities, town and villages or both for which the authority are created to carry out the function of State which are sovereign whereas the urban development and calculation of development charges will fall under the development charges.

  Deletion of 20A will not make difference in case of assessee. In our considered opinion, Clause-3 will come in the help of the assessee. In that view of the matter, we are considered opinion, that the authority assessee is a local authority for the purpose of carrying out of the improvement and development function of the State. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2017 (10) TMI 1337
  

  Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Held that:- We find that no fresh investments have been made by the assessee company during the year and the subject investments are the investments which have been made by and taken over from the partnership firm M/s KGK Enterprises. On similar lines, the AO has made a disallowance in the instant case. In case of KGK Enterprises for AY 2010-11 (2016 (8) TMI 1371 - ITAT JAIPUR), we have already taken a view that disallowance under the provisions of Section 14A are not warranted.

  Disallowance being 10% of the total expenses incurred on various expenses - Held that:- On perusal of orders of the lower authorities, we find that the disallowance has been made on a purely adhoc basis and such adhoc disallowance cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In the result, disallowance is hereby deleted - Assessee appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2017 (10) TMI 1336
  

  Disallowance u/s.14A - Tribunal deleted addition - Held that:- Tribunal has relied on its judgment in case of this very assessee in earlier assessment years. Both sides brought to our notice the judgment of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income tax Ahmedabad IV v. Banaskantha Dist. Co. Op. Milk Producers' Union Ltd [2014 (5) TMI 12 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] confirming the decision of the Tribunal. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2017 (10) TMI 1335
  
  The Supreme Court of India, in 2017, dismissed the Special Leave Petitions after allowing applications for exemption from filing official translation and certified copy of the judgment.

  ---

• 2017 (10) TMI 1334
  

  Reopening of assessment - Addition u/s 68 - ITAT deleted the addition as no notice was issued under Section 143(2), before the completion of assessments - The ITAT followed the view in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. (2015 (10) TMI 1765 - DELHI HIGH COURT) as affirmed in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -18 vs. Silver Line [2015 (11) TMI 809 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Held that:- No substantial question of law.

  ---

• 2017 (10) TMI 1333
  
  The Supreme Court of India dismissed the civil appeals as they found no merit in them. Admission was refused. (2017 (10) TMI 1333 - SC Order)

  ---

• 2017 (10) TMI 1332
  

  Refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit - denial on the ground of non-registration of premises - Held that:- Reliance placed in the case of Scioinspire Consulting Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (4) TMI 943 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein the Hon ble High Court has held that there is no bar on availing the credit for the services provided prior to registration.

  Remand of matter - Held that:- The original authority has disallowed the disputed input credit only on the grounds that it pertains to the period prior to date of registration and not on merits. This decision was not appealed against by the department to the Commissioner (Appeals) and hence they cannot make this as a ground for remand, before this forum, at this stage.

  Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2017 (10) TMI 1331
  

  Disallowance of expenditure u/s. 40(a)(ia) - due date for payment into the account of Central Government - Held that:- The Tribunal by the impugned judgment held that tax deducted at source was deposited, however same was belated. The Tribunal also held that the explanation to section 40(a)(ia) added on 1.4.2005 as held by this Court in case of CIT v. Omprakash R. Chaudhary reported in (2015 (2) TMI 150 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) is to be applied retrospectively.

  ---

• 2017 (10) TMI 1330
  

  Deduction u/s 10A - Held that:- The questions raised in this appeal are answered against the appellants by this Court in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2011 (8) TMI 845 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2017 (10) TMI 1329
  

  Penalty u/r 209-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Undervaluation of inputs - irregular availment of CENVAT/MODVAT credit - case of appellant is that neither the Show Cause Notice nor the Adjudication Order has anyway established that the present appellants were responsible for any activity which lead to the allegations in the said Show Cause Notice against M/s Rathi Ispat Ltd. - Held that:- There is no issue framed by the Original Authority in respect of admissibility of the present appellants for imposition of personal penalty under said Rule 209-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - there are also no finding given on the facts of omission or commission by the present appellants in the present Adjudication Order which made them liable for imposition of penalty - Without any findings, the Original Authority has jumped to the conclusion in Para 10 of the said impugned Order-in-Original 31/03/2007 that the present appellants have willingly schemed and indulged in the fraudulent act of under valuation of the S.S. Billets mis-declaration of S.S. Billets as Other Alloy Steel Billets and misrepresentation of the facts about receipt of Modvat inputs.

  There is absence of any finding by the Original Authority about the role played by the present appellants in respect of the allegations made against M/s Rathi Ispat Ltd. - In absence of any finding imposition of personal penalty on the present appellants is not sustainable - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

1 ....131415161718192021........ 84