|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 1635 Records
-
2022 (3) TMI 1295
Penalty under section 270A - Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income - HELD THAT:- There is not even a whisper as to which limb of Section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub-section (9) of Section 270A is satisfied. In the absence of such particulars, the mere reference to the word "misreporting" by the Respondents in the assessment order to deny immunity from imposition of penalty and prosecution makes the impugned order manifestly arbitrary.
This Court is of the opinion that the entire edifice of the assessment order framed by Respondent No.1 was actually voluntary computation of income filed by the Petitioner to buy peace and avoid litigation, which fact has been duly noted and accepted in the assessment order as well and consequently, there is no question of any misreporting.
This Court is further of the view that the impugned action of Respondent No.1 is contrary to the avowed Legislative intent of Section 270AA of the Act to encourage/incentivize a taxpayer to (i) fast-track settlement of issue, (ii) recover tax demand; and (iii) reduce protracted litigation.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1294
Capital gains u/s 45 - FMV determination - explanation as to why the improvement cost in excess of what has been reported in the valuation report of DVO should not be disallowed from the cost of acquisition of the above-mentioned property for calculation of capital gains under Section 45 - HELD THAT:- Upon perusal of the paper book, this Court finds it strange that though the property in question was mortgaged in favour of Yes Bank, yet the property in question was sold to a company in which the wife of the person in management of the Yes Bank was a Director. Further, admittedly, the property in question was sold by the Petitioner below the circle rate (stamp value rate) contrary to Section 50C of the Act. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the AO has the jurisdiction to examine in detail the transaction in question.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition is bereft of any merit. Accordingly, the writ petition and applications are dismissed.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1293
Reopening of assessment u/s 148 - Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - re-assessment notice issued under the erstwhile section147/148 after 1.4.2001 without following the mandate of new section 148A - Notice as barred by limitation - enforcement of the Enabling Act and the Finance Act, 2021 - scope of provisions of Section 148 read with Section 148A as substituted by Finance Act, 2021 - HELD THAT:- As relying on MANOJ JAIN VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [2022 (1) TMI 741 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] and BAGARIA PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. & ANR. VERSUS U.O.I & ORS. [2022 (1) TMI 742 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] is disposed of by allowing the same. Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to the Notifications dated 31st March, 2021 and 27th April, 2021 are declared to be ultra vires the Relaxation Act, 2020 and are therefore bad in law and null and void. Accordingly, impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is quashed with liberty to the Assessing Officers concerned to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2021 and after making compliance of the formalities as required by the law.
This writ petition is being entertained subject to payment of cost of ₹ 5000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee since the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been issued on 20th April, 2021 as appears from record and this writ petition has been filed in March, 2022, that is, almost after ten months from receipt of the impugned notice, without any explanation for such delay in filing this writ petition.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1292
Application u/s 197 - profits to the Permanent Establishment (PE) of the petitioner therein in India, at the rate of 26% - HELD THAT:- In case the petitioners were to move an application u/s 197 of the Act for FY 2022-2023, and if the contentions raised in the writ petitions form part of the said application, including what is noted hereinabove by us with regard to the attribution of profits to the PE, the same will be dealt with by the AO, as per law.
At this stage, Mr Jolly says that the petitioners will move an application for the F.Y.2022-2023, within four weeks of receipt of a copy of this order. In case, such an application is moved, the AO will dispose of the same within four weeks of the receipt of the application.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1291
Late filing fee under section 234E - Intimation u/s 200A and the implications of the amendment brought in to the Act - HELD THAT:- In the decision in M/s.Sarala Memorial Hospital v. Union of India [2018 (12) TMI 1818 - KERALA HIGH COURT] held that the amendment would take effect only from 1 st June, 2015 and is thus prospective in nature. The aforesaid judgment has become final and is binding upon the authorities. Thus the jurisdiction to levy late fee under section 234E arises only from 01-06.2015 and not earlier.
As regards the contention on the delay, though the said contention was impressive on first blush, it can be seen that the nature of challenge raised by the petitioner is based upon the lack of jurisdiction of the respondents to impose late fee. Since in matters where total lack of jurisdiction is alleged, delay cannot be relied upon as a ground to deny the relief, this Court is of the view that the objections of the respondents are without any basis.
The decisions cited are distinguishable on the facts of those cases itself. In the decision in Digambar's case [1995 (5) TMI 262 - SUPREME COURT] the delay of 20 years in approaching the High Court for grant of compensation for alleged utilization of the land was held as a decisive factor to disentitle the petitioner therein. Similarly in G.C.Gupta's case [1987 (5) TMI 383 - SUPREME COURT] the issue related to seniority and petitioners challenged the orders of confirmation and determination of inter se seniority only after 15 years. In the decision in Bhailal Bhai's case [1964 (1) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT] the question related to refund of tax claimed belatedly. None of those cases related to a total lack of jurisdiction or authority.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1290
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Reopening notice within four years - eligibility of reason to believe - HELD THAT:- Section 148 notices have been issued within four years from the end of the relevant Assessment Years. Also no scrutiny assessment has been taken place in the present cases. Consequently, the test to be applied for re-assessment in the present cases is whether there is ‘reason to believe’ that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. [1997 (12) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] the Supreme Court has held that the expression ‘reason to believe’ means that there is some prima facie material on the basis of which the Department can reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at the stage of issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act.
This Court is of the view that the aforesaid test stipulated in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. (supra) is satisfied in the present case. However, the contentions and submissions raised by the petitioner are relevant and must be examined by the Assessing Officer while passing the reassessment order. It will also be open to the assessee to show in the re-assessment proceedings that the assumption of facts made in the notice is erroneous.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1289
TDS u/s 194I - TDS against payment of transmission charges made to OPTCL as the equipment held by the OPTCL have not been given on rent, lease etc. to the assessee - Whether ITAT is justified in holding that payment made by the assessee Company is only towards purchase price of electricity from the GRIDOC and not from OPTCL for which no TDS liability is attracted in terms of section 194I? - HELD THAT:- The Court is not persuaded that any error has been committed by the ITAT in coming to the above conclusion. In absence of there being any payment of rent or even deemed rent by the Respondents to OPTCL there was no obligation under Section 194-I of the IT Act to deduct TDS from the wheeling charges paid to OPTCL. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1288
Applicability of provisions of Sec.10(23C)(vi) introduced only w.e.f. 1. 4.1999 - HELD THAT:- As prior to its re-enactment as Section 10 (23C) (vi) of the Act, the very same provision existed in the statute book as Section 10 (22) of the Act. In other words, what was in fact referred to both by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT (A) as far as the present case is concerned, was Section 10 (22) of the Act and not Section 10 (23C) (vi) of the Act. The latter provision was mentioned as Section 10(22)/10(23C) (vi) only to indicate that the same provision has been reenacted as Section 10 (23C) (vi) of the Act with effect from 1st April, 1999. This is not to say that reliance is placed on the re-enacted provisions. Consequently, as far as Question No.(ii) is concerned, the Court finds nothing erroneous in the order of either the CIT (A) or the ITAT. The issue is decided in favour of the Assessee and against the Department.
Approval to the Institution u/s 10(23C)(vi) - whether the income earned by the Trust was exclusively from educational activities? - HELD THAT:- Present case does not involve grant of approval by the CCIT, the general proposition in law that the word ‘solely’ appearing in Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act emphasizes that the income of the Institution has to be from activities which are solely educational and not commercial activities, if the income has to be exempted from tax. This Court was reiterating the settled legal position in this regard as explained in Aditanar Educational Institution v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax [1997 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] followed in American Hotel and Lodging Association Educational Institute v. Central Board of Direct Taxes,[2008 (5) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT]. The decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Pinegrove International Charitable Trust v. Union of India, [2010 (1) TMI 49 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT] and of this Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Silicon Institute of Technology [2014 (11) TMI 588 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] are all to the same effect.
While the legal position is clear, each of these cases turned on the peculiar facts on whether the income earned by the institution involved in those cases was from activities which were solely and exclusively ‘educational’. In the present case, the concurrent findings of the CIT (A) and the ITAT that the income earned by the Assessee was from solely educational activity and not commercial activity appears to be based on a proper analysis of all the materials available on record and, therefore, the Court is unable to agree with the contention of the Revenue that either order requires interference. Questions Nos. (i) and (iii) are answered accordingly in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1287
Enhanced book profit towards profit u/s 10A by way of exclusion of receipt and expenses of the unit - AO also made disallowances of indexation benefit against long term capital gain on the sale of shares - company in question was in liquidation and was not in a position to pay its outstanding dues including its taxes - CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the proviso to Section 73A is not applicable to assessee company in respect of indexation benefit against long term capital gains and deleted the addition by holding that no deduction was claimed u/s 10A - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the aforesaid order of Apex Court in Civil Appeal[2020 (7) TMI 760 - SC ORDER] makes it clear that the respondent company Moser Baer India Ltd. is not financially viable and is in liquidation before NCLT. The order also makes it clear that even if the Revenue were to succeed, the Official Liquidator would not be in a position to pay the tax amount involved in these appeals. Thus, even if the appellant-department succeeds in the present appeal, there would be no fructifying effect as the respondent company, which is under liquidation, would not be able to discharge its debts and tax liability through the liquidator. The courts are already overburdened.
Thus, while dealing with such matters, it has to be seen whether keeping such matters alive would serve any purpose. If such matters continue to remain on board, they would rather block other deserving matters. There is no purpose of flogging a dead horse. We are of the view that there is no purpose in keeping this matter alive. Hence, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances, the report filed by the department and the order passed by the Apex Court we dispose of the present appeal, leaving the question of law open to be decided in an appropriate case.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1286
Grant of approval under section 80G - CIT (Exemptions) had rejected the application for grant of approval u/s 80G(5) observing that the applicant has not provided any material to fulfill the requirements as enumerated in the provisions of Rule 11AA of the Income Tax Rules, thus, there is no material available on record so as to form any satisfaction regarding the genuineness of the activities carried out - HELD THAT:- CIT (E) has passed the order, rejecting the application of the assessee for approval under section 80G of the Act, in the absence of the assessee - we feel that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to explain its case before the ld. CIT (Exemptions). We are of the view, from the facts of the case, that the assessee has not been given proper and sufficient opportunity before disposing of the application for approval, by the ld. CIT (Exemptions).
We, therefore, in the interest of justice, set aside the order of the ld. CIT (Exemptions) and restore the matter to his file with the direction to consider and decide afresh, the application of the assessee for approval under section 80G of the Act, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of this order, on affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be present on the date of hearing and provide the material / clarification as asked for by the ld. CIT (Exemptions). Appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1285
Disallowance of warranty expenses which was made on the basis of past experience and on a scientific basis - HELD THAT: -The Tribunal in the orders for assessment years 1996-1997 to 2007-2008 after considering the method of providing for warranty liability by way of provision, held that provision made was based on past history and was on scientific method of estimating the liabilities on account of warranty claim.
In view of the co-ordinate Bench order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case, which is identical to the facts of the instant case, we direct the A.O. to allow the provision for warranty as an allowable deduction. Therefore, ground 2 is allowed.
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.s. 8D(2)(ii) as gone through the financial find that the assessee has total investment as on 31.03.2008 at ₹ 70.45 crore. The assessee’s interest free fund, namely, share capital and reserves and surplus is far exceeding the above investment. Therefore, going by the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Micro Labs Limited [2016 (4) TMI 219 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], no disallowance of interest u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) is called for and we delete the same.
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) - AR took us to the various types of expenses incurred by the assessee and submitted that most of the expenses are not related to the earning of exempt income. It was submitted that the issue may be restored to the files of the A.O. to re-determine the disallowance by excluding the value of investment which did not yield exempt income while computing average value of investments, as per order of ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] - DR did not have objection to the above submission of the learned AR. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the CIT(A), as regards the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.rule 8D(2)(iii) of the I.T.Rules and restore the matter to the files of the A.O.
Deduction u/s 10A - deduct telecommunication expenses incurred in foreign currency from total turnover and from export turnover - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of HCL Technologies Ltd.[2018 (5) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT] has held that when expenditure is reduced from export turnover, the same should be reduced also from the total turnover while computing deduction u/s 10A - we hold that the CIT(A) is justified in directing the A.O. to reduce expenditure reduced from export turnover also from total turnover, while computing deduction u/s 10A of the I.T.Act. It is ordered accordingly.
Commission payment disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) as cash discount - HELD THAT:- The limited submission of the learned Standing Counsel is to remit the issue to A.O. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the CIT(A) has admitted additional evidence without giving the A.O. an opportunity to examine the same. We find that no additional evidence was produced by the assessee before the CIT(A). The details of the cash discount and foreign commission were already on record before the A.O. The cash discount and foreign commission in total was ₹ 4.30 crore and break-up of the same was provided (the break-up of cash discount of ₹ 3,24,37,251 and foreign commission of ₹ 1,05,56,342). Providing the break-up of figure which already on record, does not amount to production of additional evidence. Moreover, no useful purpose would be served at this point of time to remand the matter (since we are concerned with A.Y. 2008-2009) to A.O., to examine the break-up of figure which is already available before him at the time of assessment
Customs duty included in the closing stock u/s 43B - HELD THAT:- As relying on ASEA BROWN BOVERI LIMITED. [2007 (4) TMI 284 - ITAT BOMBAY-E] AO is directed to allow the deduction u/s 43B with respect to payments made towards entire custom duty paid in respect of goods lying in closing stock. This ground, therefore, succeeds.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1284
Exemption u/s 11 - Charitable activity u/s 2(15) - assessee was giving on rent Kalyana Mandapa for fees - whether trust was mainly for charitable purposes for providing facilities and amenities for the education of the poor, medical facilities etc? - as per revenue assessee was not maintaining any separate books of accounts for the business of running of kalyana mandapa, and therefore, even if the business is incidental to the attainment of the object of the Trust, the benefit u/s 11 of the Act cannot be granted - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the assessee is primarily carrying on the activity of letting out of kalyana mandapa, which is nothing but objects of general public utility and the letting out is being done on a commercial basis by charging exorbitant amount. The amended proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T.Act has application to the facts of the instant case. Section 13(8) of the Act, inserted with effect from 01.04.2009 states that “Nothing contained in section 11 or section 12 shall operate so as to exclude any income from the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt thereof if the provisions of the first proviso to clause (15) of section 2 become applicable in the case of such person in the said previous year.
Assessee has not been maintaining books of account separately for the business of letting out of kalyana mandapa. Therefore, even assuming the business is incidental to the attainment of the objects of the trust in absence of separate books of account, the benefit of section 11 of the I.T.Act cannot be granted. - Decided against assessee.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1283
Claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - appellant/assessee is co-operative society, engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members - AO has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) treating the assessee “co-operative society” as a “co-operative bank” - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order qua the assessee. CIT(A) has mentioned several dates on which the case was fixed for hearing, where the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A).
As seen that the ld. CIT(A) has mentioned the dates of fixation of hearing but he has not mentioned the date of service of notice on the assessee. In the absence of the factum of service of notice, the contentions raised by the assessee has substance and in our view, the request of the assessee is justified that he ought to have been heard by the ld. CIT(A) before any adverse inference was drawn by not only issuing notice but by way of bringing the acknowledgment of service of notice on record.
We are of the considered opinion that the appeal should be set aside to the file of the CIT(A) as there is violation of principles of natural justice. The assessee is directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A), take notice and thereafter co-operate in disposal of the appeal - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1282
Revision u/s 263 - Eligibility for deduction u/s 80-IC - assessee was engaged in computer programming and Data processing - HELD THAT:- Revisional Authority has interpreted the provisions of description of activity as mentioned in Sl. No. 13 of Part C of Schedule XIV of the Act in a manner as it was approached for interpretation of the scope of this provision in context to the nature of business activity. Which is not the purpose of vesting revisional powers under the Act. A favourable interpretation given by the ld. Assessing Officer in favour of the assessee based upon consideration of the response of assessee cannot justify use of revisional powers and justify another interpretation.
It is settled position of law that for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction u./s. 263 of the Act, the conclusion that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue has to be preceded by some minimal enquiry. If the Revisional authority is of the view that the AO did not undertake any enquiry, it becomes incumbent on the Revisional Authority to conduct such enquiry. If the Revisional Authority does not conduct such basic exercise then the he is not justified in setting aside the order u/s. 263.
However, it appears from the record that when the show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act was issued the Ld. Revisional Authority had then merely raised query seeking explanation from assessee to satisfy how the business of computer programming, data processing entitles benefit of deduction u/s 80- IC of the Act.
In the case in hand the Ld Revisional Authority has done no homework on any aspect for which further enquiry was expected from the ld. AO but restricted to interpretation of relevant entry of nature of business activity and held that enquiry done by Ld. AO in “complete scrutiny” proceedings were not satisfactory. In fact specifically with regard to observations made in para 2.7, as reproduced above, it can be observed that in notice dated 8/7/16 the Ld. AO had specifically put a query no (xvii) “ Furnish details of amounts paid to related persons covered u/s 40A(2)(b) and furnish a comparative chart of the same shown in the Balance Sheet and in Audit Report.” This certainly included admissibility of such expenses as per the provisions of the Act. To which the assessee in letter dated 5/8/16 had given details of payments which were considered by ld. AO while passing assessment order. Ld. Revisional authority has not enquired and discussed a word as to how any of these expenses were not admissible and concluded that the enquiry conducted by Ld. AO was not satisfactory. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1281
Addition u/s 68 - Unexplained cash credit - onus to prove -HELD THAT:- It is not just entry of cash credit in the books of accounts that would create liability of explanation from the assessee, but there should be an actual flow of funds. Once the flow of funds is established then the question of explanation from the assessee actually arises. Where the books of accounts on its own establish that the entry was fictitious and sham for window dressing , then as such the initial burden on the revenue is not discharged to shift onus on the assessee to explain further identity, capacity and genuineness of the source.
It can be seen in present case that the Ld. AO had observed from the books of accounts that the entry was fictitious and was reversed immediately in next FY on 1/4/2014, without any actual cash flow. But Ld AO was carried away by morality of accounting practices by holding that there is no concept like notional entries in the preparation of books of accounts and to which more pragmatic view was taken by the Ld FAA by accepting the plea of assessee and observing in para 11 of its order that “ the entire story is one of series of entries passed with a view of shoring up its current ratio for showing the same to the bank for better interest on loans raised
onus on the assessee was discharged with the explanation that there was no actual flow of funds and that explanation being factual could not have been rebutted on deemed fiction. Thus Ld. FAA was correct in following the ratio laid in Jatia Investment Co. Ltd. [1992 (8) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT]that fictitious entry not backed up by funds may not be taxable as “Cash Credit”.
FAA has also taken into consideration the fact that the entries were not from strangers but from the partners by way of introduction of capital so the correct course would have been to bring the capital introduced to tax in the hands of the partners as their unexplained income. - Decided against revenue.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1280
Validity of assessment - Non issuing of notice u/s 143(2) - Applicability of provisions of section 292BB - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of the materials we notice that there is a system generated audit trail evidencing that that the notice u/s.143(2) is generated fixing the date of hearing on 12/09/2014. The assessee during the course of hearing had admitted the error of omission and agreed to the addition to the income of the assessee and also has paid tax on the same.
The argument of the Ld DR that there is no noting or mention in the assessment about any objections raised by the assessee about non issue of notice u/s. 143(2) and that in the order sheet signed by the representative agreeing to the addition made, there is no objections raised, merits consideration. Before the Tribunal the AR could not submit any proof for having raised the objections before the completion of the assessment. From the evidences perused there is nothing to prove that the objection were raised before AO for non issue of notice u/s.143(2) to take shelter under proviso to 292BB and that there is no contrary evidence submitted to support the claim that the notice u/s.143(2) was not served on the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1279
Approval u/ 80 G (5) (vi) - approval denied as application was pre-mature as the assessee had not yet been granted registration u/s 12A - assessee again filed an application for approval u/s 80G which was also rejected on the ground that the trust was overtly religious - HELD THAT:- The assessee trust continues to enjoy benefit of registration u/s 12AA of the Act and the Department has not initiated any action to cancel the said registration. Thus, for all practical purposes, the assessee trust continues to enjoy the benefit of registration u/s 12AA of the Act, as its activities are charitable in nature.
No doubt has been raised about the charitable objects of the assessee trust. A perusal of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(E) further shows that even the Ld. CIT(E) has not doubted the charitable nature of the objects of the assessee trust. Also there is no averment or allegation that the assessee trust does not fulfill the conditions as required u/s 80G(5)(vi)
CIT(E) was not correct in rejecting the assessee’s application for approval. Further, the Ld. CIT(E)’s observation that the assessee did not prefer any appeal against the earlier orders rejecting the approval also does not hold good as the choice is left open to the assessee whether to file an appeal against the rejection of application or to file a fresh application. The case laws, as have been relied upon by the Ld. CIT DR, are also of no aid to the Department in, as much as, these case laws are on an entirely different footing and are not relevant in the present set of facts - CIT(E) was patently wrong in rejecting the assessee’s application for approval u/s 80 G (5)(vi) - we direct the Ld. CIT(E) to grant approval to the assessee trust u/s 80G - Appeal of assessee allowed.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1278
Late fee towards the delay in filing the TDS returns u/s 234(E) - Scope of regulatory provision being found in sec. 200A for computation of fees - AR submitted that the lower authorities have ignored the fact that prior to 1st June, 2015, there was no enabling provision for payment and levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act HELD THAT:- We respectfully following the binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shri Fatheraj Singhvi [2016 (9) TMI 964 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] hold that the fee u/s. 234E cannot be levied without machinery provision of sec. 200A. The appeal therefore is allowed in favour of the assessee.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1277
Disallowance u/s 14A - assessee had suo moto disallowed a sum on account of expenses pertaining to this exempt income - HELD THAT:- We find that while restricting the disallowance of expenses u/s. 14A to the extent of exempt income earned, the Ld. CIT(A) followed the decision of Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd.[2014 (3) TMI 856 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and also Chhetinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (4) TMI 298 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] which decision he noted was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on merits[2018 (7) TMI 567 - SC ORDER]. Thus we see no reason to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) restricting the disallowance of expenses u/s. 14A to the extent of exempt income earned.
Addition u/s 14A made by the AO to the book profit of the assessee u/s 115JB - HELD THAT:- The issue was covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Special Bench of ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI].
Disallowance of Forex Gain - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition finding that in identical set of facts in the case of assessee itself, the ITAT had in earlier years i.e A.Y 2009-10 & 2010-11 held that no addition on account of notional gain or loss on account of foreign exchange fluctuation was warranted as per the provisions of Section 43A of the Act. - Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1276
Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of 100% of the expenses claimed by the assessee which was restricted to 50% on the reasoning that the other associated/sister concern of the assessee also availed the benefit of research and development activity carried out by the assessee - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2021 (12) TMI 1320 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] as regards the main provisions of section 271(1)(c) we find that the genuineness of the expenses were not doubted by CIT (A). As only alleged that the associated concern /sister concern have availed the benefit of the expenditures incurred by the assessee out of research and development activity - The entire expenses cannot be allowed as deduction to the assessee. As per the learned CIT (A) the impugned expenses should also be allocated to the other units of the assessee group concern which availed the benefit of research and development activity carried out by it.
There was no doubt raised by the authorities below as far as genuineness of the expenses is concern. Undeniably research and development facility maintained by the assessee was approved by DSIR. What was doubted the quantum of the expenses by the learned CIT (A) which has led to the present penalty proceedings. Claim of the assessee at the most can be regarded as inaccurate claim which cannot be equated with the inaccurate particulars of income. It is for the reason that nothing has been brought on record by the authorities below suggesting that the assessee has furnished the particulars of income with dishonest intent. - Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
9911796707
