|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 1288 Records
-
2014 (9) TMI 953
Fringe benefits tax - reimbursement of medical expenses to the employees - Held that:- Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2006-07 held that the payments made by the employees to the approved hospitals and the subsequent reimbursement of such payments to the employees by the employer do not attract fringe benefits tax. It was held that when an item which is to be treated as perquisite in the hands of the employees, is exempt in the hands of the individual employee the same cannot be subjected to fringe benefits tax. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Fringe benefits tax - sales promotion expenses including publicity expenses - Held that:-Tribunal in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd., [2012 (6) TMI 484 - ITAT, Bangalore] has held that any expenditure which is not incurred directly or indirectly for the benefit of employees is not liable for fringe benefits tax. In the case before us also, the employees of the assessee-company are not the beneficiaries. The customers are the beneficiaries. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal to which one of us i.e., the Judicial Member is a signatory, these grounds of appeals are allowed. there is no benefit derived by the employees of the assessee-company from bundling of one product with another and therefore, fringe benefits tax is not attracted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Fringe benefits tax - expenses incurred towards payment of fees, venue hiring charges on trainees enrolled as students in BITS and scholarship given to the trainees - Held that:- the assessee, in association with BITS, has incurred certain expenditure on training programme of fresh gradu ates to prepare them to work with the application programmes and for this purpose has incurred an expenditure of ₹ 4,41,96,480 towards payment of stipend to the trainees which is in the nature of salary, course fees, venue hiring charges etc. It is the contention of the assessee that the amount paid towards training is taxable in the hands of the trainees as perquisites under section 17(2) which is exempt under section 10(16) as the same is paid to meet the cost of education of student and hence, it is not to be included as fringe benefits under section 115WB(2). - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (9) TMI 952
Exemption under section 54/54F denied - AO proceeded to complete the assessment under section 144 - CIT(A) held that the assessee ought to have furnished evidence to substantiate his claim and has failed to do so and therefore the action of the Assessing Officer had to be upheld - assessee challenged the validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings - Held that:- In the proceedings before the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee was not properly represented. From the computation of total income filed by the assessee, it is seen that the assessee had clearly expressed his intention of constructing a residential house by pointing out construction of compound wall and levelling of the site had been carried out. It is also seen from the photographs filed before us that there exists a house constructed on the site purchased by the assessee. The question is as to, when the construction started. The date on which the construction is completed may not be very material in the light of decision of CIT v. Sambandam Udayakumar [2012 (3) TMI 80 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT].
The assessee has filed before us the letter which indicates construction activities having been carried out over the site purchased by the assessee within a period of three years from the date of transfer of the capital asset. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee should be afforded an opportunity to explain its stand with supporting evidence. We therefore set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and remand the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee will be at liberty to substantiate his case by filing necessary documentary or oral evidence. We are also of the view that the order of the Assessing Officer is silent as to the basis on which the proceedings under section 148 were initiated. A perusal of the reasons recorded before issue of notice under section 148 of the Act is necessary to find out, if the conditions precedent for initiating reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act are satisfied. We are of the view that even this issue should be left open to be agitated by the assessee in the set aside proceedings before the Assessing Officer. - Decided partly in favour of assesse for statistical purposes.
-
2014 (9) TMI 951
Registration under section 12A denied - Director of Income-tax (Exemption) opined that in absence of necessary information with regard to carrying on of activities by the trust, the genuineness of the activities cannot be ascertained, hence, the trust cannot be granted registration under section 12A - Held that:- Commencing of activities is not the sole criterian to ascertain genuineness of the activities. As can be seen, the trust was created in March, 2013 and it applied for registration in June '13. Therefore, within a span of three/four months, it cannot be expected that the trust will be undertaking activities on a large scale. Moreover, it appears from the materials on record that the trust in fact has undertaken certain activities though on a limited scale, to generate/create awareness amongst the general public with regard to fraud committed in the health sector. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the trust has not commenced its activities. Further, it has to be noted that trust or institution is not prohibited from carrying on of any activity of commercial nature if such commercial activity is intended for achieving the objects of the trust.
So far as Director of Income-tax (Exemption)'s observation with regard to violation of provision contained under section 11(1)(d) of the Act is concerned, on going through the said provision, we are of the view that the observation made by the Director of Income-tax (Exemption) is not only irrelevant but is also misplaced. Furthermore, if there is any violation of the provision contained under section 11, the same can be looked into by the Assessing Officer while examining the assessee's claim under section 11 of the Act in the course of assessment proceeding. At the time of grant of registration under section 12A of the Act, the Director of Income-tax (Exemption) cannot step into the shoes of the Assessing Officer and examine the claim of the assessee under section 11. In view of the aforesaid, we hold that the Director of Income-tax (Exemption) was not justified in rejecting the assessee's application for grant of registration under section 12A. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Director of Income-tax (Exemption) and direct him to grant registration to the assessee under section 12A. Further, we direct the Director of Income-tax (Exemption) to grant approval under section 80G(5) of the Act subject to fulfilment of conditions prescribed under clauses (i) to (v) of section 80G(5) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assesse.
-
2014 (9) TMI 950
CENVAT Credit - Refund claim - Held that:- Duty self-assessed by the appellant with respect to inputs lying in stock, as well as those lying in the finished goods, was paid in the month of July, 2004 and the interest was paid on 5-12-2005 through PLA. It is also observed from the case records that the adjudicating authority vide OIO, dated. 24-4-2007 has sanctioned refund of interest amount of ₹ 3,79,312/- as the same was paid on 5-12-2005 and the refund application was made on 17-11-2005. So far as the remaining refund claim amount of ₹ 38,22,813/- is concerned, the same represent the duty self-calculated by the appellant and paid suo motu. At the time of payment/reversal of CENVAT credit, Larger Bench decision in the case of CC., Rajkot v. Ashok Iron & Steel Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. (2002 (1) TMI 91 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI) was available. As per the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, all the refund claims are required to be filed within the stipulated time limit prescribed. - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (9) TMI 949
Valuation of goods - Whether the equalized freight was to be part of the assessable value or not - Held that:- During the period of dispute, the definition of “Place of Removal” as given in Section 4(3)(c) of Central Excise Act, 1944, covered only a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the excisable goods, or warehouse or any other place or premises wherein excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited without payment of duty. - during the period prior to 14-5-2003, the “place of removal” would include only the factory or Bonded Warehouse where the non-duty paid have been allowed to be stored and would not include the “depot” or “consignment agent’s premises” or “customer’s premises” in case of FOR sales. In accordance with the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of Ispat Industries v. CCE, Mumbai reported in [2006 (9) TMI 181 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] in case of conflict between provision of a Rule framed under the Delegated Legislative Authority, and the provisions of an Act passed by the Parliament, it is the provision of the Act which will prevail.
Provisions of Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, relied upon by the Department, cannot be given an interpretation which is the conflict with the provisions of Section 4(3)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the same stood during the period of dispute. Therefore, during the period of dispute, equalized freight would not be includible in the assessable value as the transaction value has to be the price at the place of removal which in this case during the period of dispute was the factory gate. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the impugned order - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (9) TMI 948
Rejection of transaction value - Exclusion of over-riding commission - Held that:- The appellant has submitted the evidences of such transactions wherein, if the over riding commission is excluded, the realization by the foreign supplier in both the transactions remains more or less identical. These evidences submitted by the appellant have not been considered or rebutted by the department in any meaningful way. Thus, the appellant has demonstrated that the price which he has paid for the imports undertaken from the related foreign buyer remains uninfluenced by the relationship and is the transaction value for the purpose of Section 14 of the Customs Act. Rule 3(3)(b) of CVR 2007, also provides that suitable adjustments has to be made for the difference in transaction levels, quantity levels and relevant facts and the comparison made between the prices to a independent buyer and the prices to a related party where the related party acts as a dealer/distributor. This provision of law has been completely ignored by the lower authorities. - acting as indenting agent and earning commission from foreign suppliers for their sales to third parties are entitled to a lower price for supply and merely because a lower price is charged, it cannot be held that the transaction value can be rejected unless there is evidence of additional consideration of flow back to the foreign supplier. - impugned order is clearly unsustainable in law and the value declared by the appellant has to be accepted as transaction value for the purpose of imports - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (9) TMI 947
Rejection of transaction value - lower appellate authority has come to the opposite conclusion and has held that the relationship has influenced the transaction value and, therefore, the value declared by the appellant for the goods imported is not acceptable and has to be loaded by franchisee fee of 5% in terms of the franchise agreement and any other charges under Rule 10(l)(c) of Customs Valuation Rules - Held that:- From the records of the case, it is seen that the order of the assessing officer was received by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), the reviewing authority, on 21-2-2011. Another copy of the order was also received by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Review Cell, on 25-2-2011. Section 129D(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 mandates that, review of the order under sub¬section (1) or sub-section (2), as the case may be, shall be made within a period of three months from the date of communication of the decision or order of the adjudicating authority. Since the reviewing authority has received the order on 21-2-2011, the period of 3 months has to be computed from that date and if that is done, the time for passing the review order expires on 21-5-2011. In the present case, the order of review has been passed only on 24-5-2011. Since time limit has been prescribed statutorily, the same has to be adhered to without any exception. Therefore, review order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) for filing of the appeal before the lower appellate authority is clearly unsustainable and thereby making the appeal itself not maintainable before the lower appellate authority. - impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority is unsustainable in law and accordingly the same is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (9) TMI 946
Waiver of pre deposit - Classification of CDs containing software which were imported along with relays by the appellants - Classification under Customs Tariff sub-heading 8523 80 20/8523 80 90 or under 8538 90 00 - benefit of exemption under Notification Nos. 21/2002-Cus and 12/2012-Cus. - Penalty u/s 114A - Held that:- only when information technology software is imported along with the hardware in which it is to be used, it would be classifiable under the same heading. When information technology software is imported which is not imported as part of hardware or some other equipment, Note 2(a) would be applicable. In this case, there is no dispute that information technology software has a separate tariff heading and therefore it has to be classified separately.
The software imported by the appellant is the software which is to be installed in computer and which ensures that the whole sub-station works smoothly. What happens in reality is various software packages in the equipments and relays in the sub-stations communicate with the software installed in the sub-stations imported by the appellants and the sub-station ensures smooth functioning of the sub-station. Therefore it is quite clear that the software which has been imported by the appellants is not part of the relay software or is not to be used with the relays imported by them and therefore it has to be considered as an item independently imported. If that is the case, Note 2(a) would cover the situation. Therefore we consider that prima facie the appellants have made a case for waiver of predeposit and stay against recovery - Stay granted.
-
2014 (9) TMI 945
Exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. - Interest u.s 11AB - Held that:- Respondent had supplied mild steel CTD bars for use in certain projects financed by Asian Development Bank and being implemented by Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project, Jaipur. There is no dispute that the necessary certificates as per the requirement of the exemption Notification certifying that the goods supplied are required for the projects and that the projects are financed by the Asian Development Bank through loan and have been duly approved by the Govt. of India, have been produced. The only objection of the Department is that the Respondent’s name is not mentioned as supplier of the material in the certificates. But since it is not denied that the Respondent have supplied the material to the persons mentioned in the certificates and there is no allegation of diversion of the material supplied for any other purpose, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. (2005 (3) TMI 243 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI), the benefit of the exemption cannot be denied. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (9) TMI 944
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Whether penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are distinct from the quantum proceedings under section 143(3), thus requiring independent examination and appreciation of material facts containing material particulars on the merits thereof ? - whether additional evidences thereof for case adjudication is necessarily to be examined ? - Held that:- In the revised return filed on December 2, 2008, the surrendered amount of ₹ 2.5 crores was shown therein when the assessee was cornered during the assessment proceedings. Even during the penalty proceedings before the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), there was nothing to show that the jewellery found at the premises of the assessee on October 27, 2006, was accounted money with the assessee. No satisfactory explanation had been furnished to demonstrate why the material sought to be produced now could not be produced earlier. Thus, in our opinion, in view of the above, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application for additional evidence filed by the assessee.
Combined reading of section 132(4) and Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) would clearly show that immunity is available if the income is surrendered during search and the manner of earning such income is also disclosed and the assessee based on such dis closure paid tax on the same. In the case before us, after having made surrender, the assessee simply retracted from the statement and did not include the amount of surrender in the return of income. The income was included through revised return which has to be accepted by the Assessing officer because same was late. In any case the revised return was furnished only when the assessee was fully cornered during the assessment proceedings. In addition some more items of income were also found to be concealed particularly in respect of platinum and silver jewellery. Therefore, it is a clear case of concealment and penalty has been rightly levied and confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (9) TMI 943
Benefit of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) declined to extend - whether the appellant, a multi-purpose co-operative credit society, falling within the definition of the term "primary agricultural credit co-operative society" under section 2(h-2) of the "KCS Act", is entitled to the benefit of deduction in respect of its income under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act regard being had to section 80P(4) of the Act? - Held that:- In the light of the established fact that the appellant is a multi-purpose co-operative society registered under the KCS Act as evident from the registration certificate issued under the KCS Act, it cannot but be said that it falls within the definition of the said term under section 2(f- 1) of the KCS Act and also under the definition of the term "Primary agricultural credit co-operative society". Regard being had to section 5(cciv) as provided under section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the appellant being a primary agricultural credit co-operative society, coupled with the fact that under its bye-laws, a co-operative society cannot become a member, complies with the requirements of the "Act" .
Thus the exception carved out in sub-section (4) of section 80P of the "Act" squarely applies to the appellant's multipurpose co-operative credit society, hence, entitled to the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the "Act". - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (9) TMI 942
Determination of assessable value - deduction of the sales tax - Assessee not paying sales tax - Held that:- Respondents were enjoying sales tax exemption and as such, were not paying any sales tax to the State Government. However, it is seen that they were still collecting an amount towards sales tax from their customers and at the same time, they were also claiming sales tax deduction for determining the assessable value. When they were collecting an amount towards sales tax from their customers, while they were not under any obligation to pay the same to the State Government and as such, they were not paying any sales tax to the State Government, the amount collected from customers as sales tax has to be treated as part of the transaction value and hence, its deduction would not be admissible. In any case, since the sales tax was not payable in view of the exemption, its deduction would not be admissible in view of the provisions of Section 4(3)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Though the Commissioner on this point has given a clear finding that this issue had not been decided by the Asstt. Commissioner while finalizing the provisional assessment but still, he has not confirmed the demand of the differential duty on account of wrong deduction of sales tax for determining the assessable value. - The duty demand for the period from 17-7-1991 to 7-4-1994 (sic), as made in the show cause notice, is, therefore, confirmed and the impugned order to this extent stands modified - Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2014 (9) TMI 941
Challenge to Madhavaram Left Flank Water Surplus Course scheme - Acquisition of land - actual land acquisition proceedings commenced with issuance of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 02.02.2005 - matter reached this Court and as a result of an interim order the land holders have remained protected from being dispossessed from their lands in question. - Held that:- Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not exclude any period during which the land acquisition proceeding might have remained stayed on account of stay or injunction granted by any court. In the same Act, proviso to Section 19(7) in the context of limitation for publication of declaration under Section 19(1) and the Explanation to Section 69(2) for working out the market value of the land in the context of delay between preliminary notification under Section 11 and the date of the award, specifically provide that the period or periods during which the acquisition proceedings were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any court be excluded in computing the relevant period. In that view of the matter it can be safely concluded that the Legislature has consciously omitted to extend the period of five years indicated in Section 24(2) even if the proceedings had been delayed on account of an order of stay or injunction granted by a court of law or for any reason.
Period of five years or more in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act has been prescribed with a view to benefit the land-losers and the period spent in litigation due to challenge to the award or the land acquisition proceedings cannot be excluded. From the discussions made, it is amply clear that though there is lack of clarity on the issue whether compensation has been paid for majority of land holdings under acquisition or not, there is no dispute that physical possession of the lands belonging to the appellants under consideration in these appeals has not been taken by the State or any other authority on its behalf and more than five years have elapsed since the making of the award dated 30.11.2006 and 01.01.2014 when the 2013 Act came into force. Therefore, the conditions mentioned in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are satisfied for allowing the plea of the appellants that the land acquisition proceedings must be deemed to have lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. - Decided in favour of appellant.
-
2014 (9) TMI 940
Set-off of losses - Disallowance of expenditure related to production of films - Not covered under cost of production as defined under the provisions of rule 9A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 - Held that:- It was agreed by CIT (A) that as per rule 9A, assessee had correctly carried forward loss of ₹ 2,09,98,862 to the next previous year, i.e., financial year 2008-09 (assessment year 2009-10). I also agree with the contentions of the appellant that as per section 70, it was entitled to set off loss of any source against income from any other source under the same head and the appellant was correct in set off of balance loss of ₹ 87,46,787 of P-6 against the profit of film 'Chandamama' (P-5) of ₹ 51,00,888. Hence, CIT(A) does not dispute the fact that the assessee is eligible to set-off of loss.
Disallowance of expenditure related to production of films - The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may be correct in holding that expenditure towards positive prints and advertisement cannot be considered towards cost of production as per rule 9A, he has failed to examine the assessee's claim under section 37(1) of the Act. In this context, it is to be noted that the hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Prasad Productions P. Ltd. [1989 (1) TMI 38 - MADRAS High Court] has held that even if expenditure relating to positive prints, etc., is not allowable under rule 9A, but, the same can be allowed under section 37(1) of the Act, as it is incurred in connection with the business.
It is not disputed either by the Assessing Officer or by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the assessee has incurred the expenditure in connection with the business of production of film. Therefore, applying the ratio laid down by the hon'ble Madras High Court as well as the decisions of the Tribunal, we allow the assessee's claim that the expenditure incurred is to be allowed under section 37 of the Act, even though it may not be allowable under rule 9A. Further, the assessee is also eligible to set off the expenditure incurred against profit of P-5 under section 70(1) of the Act. Accordingly, we allow the grounds raised by the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (9) TMI 939
Disallowance of claim for deduction of ₹ 1 crore relating to the value of sweat equity shares - Sweat equity shares issued to key persons - Fringe benefit tax paid on value of such shares - Held that:- As submitted by the learned Departmental representative, the income from business has to be necessarily computed in terms of sections 28 to 43 of the Act. The computation of fringe benefit tax is a subsequent exercise. Accordingly, if any expenditure is disallowed while computing the business income, then the assessee may not be liable to pay the fringe benefit tax. This position has been made clear by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in the answer to Question No. 35 given in Circular No. 8 of 2005 dated August 29, 2005 wherein it is stated that the fringe benefit tax is payable only on the amount allowed under the provisions of the Income tax Act. Hence, in our view, the Assessing Officer was right in holding that the question of allowability of the impugned claim should be independently tested in terms of the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act.In any case, the methodologies prescribed in the provisions relating to the fringe benefit tax for payment/recovery of tax may not be relevant to determine about the deductibility of an expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act.
In this case, it is clear that he sweat equity shares were issued to the above said two persons for "value addition" as given in the definition of the expression "sweat equity shares". As discussed earlier, the value addition was given by the above said persons to the assessee- company in the form of their vast experience in new business concepts and professional experience. Under these set of facts, in our view, the value addition would partake the character of an intangible asset in the hands of the assessee-company. Since the sweat equity shares were issued for acquiring value addition, in our view, the tax authorities are justified in holding the same as "capital expenditure" in the hands of the assessee company. - Decided against the assessee.
-
2014 (9) TMI 938
Validity of reopening of assessment - issuance of notice of reopening u/s.147 by a successor officer on the basis of satisfaction recorded by his predecessor - Held that:- It is not disputed by the Revenue that in the earlier year the claim of the assessee was allowed under the scrutiny assessment. It is settled proposition of law that ordinarily, revenue expenditure which is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business must be allowed in its entirety in the year in which it is incurred. It cannot be spread over a number of years even if the assessee has written it off in his books over a period of years. However, the facts may justify an assessee who has incurred expenditure in a particular year to spread and claim it over a period of ensuing years. In fact, allowing the entire expenditure in one year might give a very distorted picture of the profits of a particular year. In the case in hand, the AO in the earlier years had examined as well in this year this aspect, therefore we are of the considered view that on this ground re-opening is not justified. - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (9) TMI 937
Validity of order of Penalty u/s 271D of the Act – Bar of limitation as provided in Section 275(1)(c) of the Act – Violation of section 269SS of the Act - Held that:- Following decision of Commissioner of Income Tax-VI Versus Worldwide Township Projects Ltd. [2014 (6) TMI 47 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (9) TMI 936
Determination of arm's length price - TP adjustment - Profit Level indicator - Held that:- TP adjustment to be made to the total income of the assessee was worked out by the Assessing Officer/TPO by taking the Operating Profit to Operating Cost as PLI instead of Operating Profit to Operating Revenue taken by the assessee as PLI. - As noted by the CIT(A), the purpose of identifying the PLI is to ensure that the comparability of the controlled transactions is objective and reference in this regard was made by him to the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines 2010, wherein it was explained that the denominator should be reasonably independent from controlled transactions, as otherwise, there would be no objective starting point. Explaining further, it was observed in the OECD Transfer pricing Guidelines that when analyising a transaction consisting in the purchase of goods by a distributor from an associated enterprise for resale to independent customers, one could not weigh the net profit indicator against the cost of goods sold because these costs are the controlled costs for which consistency with the arm’s length principle is being tested - CIT(A) was fully justified in accepting the Operating Profit to operating Revenue as the PLI, as claimed by the assessee for Transfer Pricing Analysis, and not Operating Profit to Operating Cost as taken by the Assessing Officer/TPO, relying on the relevant OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, 2010 - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (9) TMI 935
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - non-deduction of TDS on freight & cartage - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that:- On the additions related to ₹ 87,321/- u/s 68 on account of unconfirmed share capital and unsecured loan, the ld. AR pleaded that confirmations for only a miniscule part of the share capital and unsecured loan could not be submitted merely because the copies of FIRCs from the bank could not be procured due to paucity of time. He also submitted that there was no mens rea on assessee’s part, hence the penalty proceedings deserves to be dropped on these additions. We find that confirmation/evidence with regard to the share capital of ₹ 51,810/- against total share capital of ₹ 24,48,100/- and unsecured loans of ₹ 35,521/- against total loan of ₹ 35,23,925/- could not be filed due to paucity of time to procure the same. In view of these facts, we hold that only on meager amount, the assessee was not able to file the confirmations due to paucity of time. Therefore, in our considered view, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act could be levied on such additions made to the income of the assessee, hence we order to delete the same.
As regard to disallowance out of freight and cartage expenses for not deducing TDS, we hold that assessee was under statutorily obligation to deduct tax at source as per expressed provision of Section 194C of the Act as these were contractual payments. Assessee had not done so and claimed these expenses which are not deductible as per expressed provisions of Section 40(ia) of the Act. Assessee had claimed ex-facie not deductible expenses. In view of these findings, we hold that assessee is liable to levy penalty for claiming ex-facie not allowing expenses. By holding so, we find no fault in the levy of penalty on these additions.
-
2014 (9) TMI 934
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- As the issue involved in the present case as well as all the material facts relevant thereto are similar to the case of IVRCL Infrastructure & Projects Ltd. (2015 (4) TMI 175 - ITAT HYDERABAD), we respectfully follow the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal rendered in the said case and uphold the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, holding that the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 is applicable to assessment year 2009-10 also, being retrospective in nature - Decided against Revenue.
Disallowance made on account of sales tax liability - Held that:- No proper and sufficient opportunity was given either by the Assessing Officer or by the learned CIT(A) to produce the relevant evidence either in the form of challan or a certificate issued by the concerned sales tax authority to show that the relevant tax liability was actually paid during the year under consideration. He has submitted that the assessee has actually paid a sum of ₹ 14.15 lakhs against the said liability during the year under consideration and an opportunity may be given to the assessee to produce the documentary evidence in support of the said payment for verification by the Assessing Officer. Since the Learned Departmental Representative has not raised any objection in this regard, we set aside the impugned orders of the Revenue authorities on this issue and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the same afresh after giving assessee a proper and sufficient opportunity to produce the proof of payment of sales tax liability. - Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
9911796707
