|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 1658 Records
-
2024 (10) TMI 1298
Non-reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) in respect of exempted supplies - impugned order does not indicate the reasons - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is apparent that the impugned order is unreasoned inasmuch as it does not consider the explanation as provided by the petitioner.
The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for considering afresh - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1297
Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - offence under Section 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- On going through the material placed on record but without meaning to make any comment on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed keeping in view the fact that the investigation has been completed, a complaint has been filed and the trial has commenced and the petitioner, whose arrest has been stayed on 16.12.2020, has not misused the same.
The petitioner is granted concession of anticipatory in the aforesaid complaint, subject to furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court and further subject to the compliance of conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1296
Maintainability of petition - non-constitution of Appellate Tribunal - Jurisdiction and authority of the Assistant Commissioner as a "proper officer" and "adjudicating authority." - cancellation of registration of GST of petiitoner - HELD THAT:- Since by order dated 30.06.2017, the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, State Goods and Services Tax Officer has been assigned the functions of proper officer under the Uttarakhand Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 by invoking powers conferred under sub Section (1), sub Section (3) of Section 5 read with clause (91) of Section 2 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Service Act, 2007 (Act No. 06 of 2017) and the Rules framed thereunder, which has not been challenged by the writ petitioner in the writ petition, whereby the Assistant Commissioner, who passed the order of cancellation of GST registration, is admittedly is an adjudicating authority as per Section 2(4) of the Act, which excludes the Commissioner and is also a proper officer in terms of Section 29(1) of the Act and hence the Appeal will lie against an order passed by such officer, i.e. Assistant Commissioner to the Commissioner.
Since after the remand order, the writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 18.08.2022, which has not been assailed and for a limited purposes the review application has been preferred whether an Appeal will lie before the Commissioner against an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, therefore, the Review Application is being allowed, in part.
The judgment and order passed by this Court on dated 20.06.2022 is reviewed and modified by holding that since the Commissioner has assigned the functions under the Act to the Assistant Commissioner and due to this assignment, the Assistant Commissioner being an officer under the Act is a proper officer in terms of Section 2(91) and also an adjudicating authority in terms of Section 2(4) of the Act and hence the Appeal will lie against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, before the Commissioner.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1295
Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner was unaware of proceedings culminating in the impugned order because GST compliances were entrusted to an auditor, who failed to notice the show cause notice and order on the GST portal - HELD THAT:- On examining the impugned order, it is clear that the tax proposal was confirmed because the tax payer did not file objections to the tax proposal. In view of the assertion that the tax payer could not participate in proceedings on account of being unaware of such proceedings, the interest of justice warrants that the petitioner be provided an opportunity by putting the petitioner on terms.
The impugned order dated 17.04.2024 is set aside on condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand with in a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With in the said period, the petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1294
Order impugned against a dead person - this petition is filed by the legal heirs of the late M.K. Girish - HELD THAT:- The petitioners have placed on record the death certificate of Mr. M.K. Girish. Such death certificate specifies the date of death as 25.02.2021. The legal heirship certificate is also on record and the legal heirs are the siblings of the late M.K. Girish and the petitioners here in. In these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
The impugned order dated 29.04.2024 is set aside by leaving it open to the respondent to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against the legal heirs of the late M.K. Girish - petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1293
Violation of principles of natural justice - Failure to consider petitioner's reply to SCN - non-application of mind - singular contention is that the exercise of issuance of show-cause notice should not be an empty formality - HELD THAT:- In furtherance of show-cause notice, the petitioner filed reply which has not been considered. This exercise of issuance of notice and obtaining a reply, in our opinion, is not an empty public relation exercise. Instead, it is the codification of principles of natural justice in the statute and the said principle mandates that said reply be obtained before passing any adverse order and there must be an application of mind by considering the reply of the petitioner. In the instant case, in a hasty manner, without application of mind, the impugned order has been passed.
Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the impugned order dated 09.05.2024 is set aside by reserving liberty to the respondents to consider the reply of petitioner and pass a fresh order - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1292
Non-service of SCN - order not communicated to the petitioner through any mode, including by uploading the same on the GST portal - violation of principles of natural justice - assessment period July 2017 to December 2017 - HELD THAT:- Pursuant to the order dated 09.01.2019, by notice dated 26.11.2020, the petitioner was called upon to remit the tax dues in relation to the order dated 09.01.2019. In spite of receiving the notice, the petitioner did not take any steps to obtain a copy of such order within a reasonable time. Instead, after receipt of the garnishee order, the petitioner addressed a communication to the first respondent on 15.05.2024 requesting for a certified copy of the impugned order and filed this writ petition upon receipt thereof.
Although a period of limitation is not prescribed for the initiation of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is needless to say that the petitioner is required to approach the Court within a reasonable time. By taking into account the fact that the order is dated 09.01.2019 and the petitioner has filed this writ petition on 24.05.2024, the petitioner is not entitled to discretionary relief.
Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1291
Admissibility of Advance Ruling application - Levy of GST on stamp duty & registration fee paid for the purpose of a registering lease deed with registering authority - Applicability of Nil rate of tax under Sl. No. 47 of the exemption notification 12/2017-CT dtd. 28.06.2017 to stamp duty & registration fee paid by the Applicant for registering their mining lease deed - stamp duty and registration fee should be treated as consideration for mining lease service, when those are actually paid for receiving service of the Government for registration of a conveyance/ lease deed - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the Applicant i.e. M/s. Geeta Rani Mohanty, Barbil, appears to have fallen under the above proviso to Section 98 (2) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Applicant opted for appeal to advance ruling at such a stage when the subject matter is already pending in the audit proceedings initiated by the Audit Commissionerate, Bhubaneswar under Section 65 of the CGST Act, 2017. Further, it is seen that DRC-01 dated 10.04.2024 has already been issued to the Applicant by the Additional Commissioner, Audit Commissionerate, Bhubaneswar demanding Rs. 6,27,74,106/- (Rupees Six Crores Twenty Seven Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand One Hundred and Six only) u/s 73 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Reliance placed upon the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/S. ABT LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY, MR. S. ELAVAZHAGAN VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, O/O. THE COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE (AUDIT), COIMBATORE [2024 (2) TMI 130 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein, the Hon’ble Court held that during the conduct of GST Audit under Section 65 of the CGST Act, 2017, if it indicates that tax was not paid or short paid or that Input Tax Credit (ITC) was wrongly availed or utilized, the proper officer may initiate the action under Section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act under Section 65 (7) of the CGST Act.
The Audit is a valid proceeding under CGST Act, 2017 and it is also covered under sub section (2) of section 98 of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant against advance ruling passed on the impugned issue is liable to be rejected.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1290
Penalty imposed u/s 271G - default of the notice requiring the petitioner/assessee to produce the relevant documents u/s 92D(3) - Whether TPO did not possess the requisite jurisdiction to initiate penalty proceedings and its imposition subsequently on 16.01.2015? - as decided by HC [2018 (10) TMI 298 - DELHI HIGH COURT] since “event of default” occurred in March, 2014 i.e. well prior to the date of coming into force the amendment (i.e. 01.10.2014), the impugned order was wholly without jurisdiction.
HELD THAT:- This petition is covered by a decision of this Court in the case of Virkey Chacko [1993 (8) TMI 1 - Supreme Court] held that the event of default defines the jurisdiction of the concerned authority, who may proceed to initiate the penalty proceedings.When the Income-tax Officer reached the satisfaction that the assessee had concealed his income and made the assessment order on March 27, 1972, the amended provisions of section 274 (2) were in operation and they entitled the Income-tax Officer to impose penalty in cases where the amount of income in respect of which particulars had been concealed were, as here, less than Rs. 25,000. Hence, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1289
Disallowance in respect of future expenses claimed as deduction - Delay filling SLP - Issue involved in this appeal is holding the questions of law in Assessee’s favour
HELD THAT:- There is absolutely no reason to condone the delay of 289 days in filing the petition. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition also stands dismissed.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1288
Addition in the hands of syndicate v/s assessee - appellant's share of profit derived by various syndicates maintaining that share of profit is taxable in the hands of syndicate or in the hands of the assessee - ITAT deleted addition - Whether, such syndicate did not have any PAN and that they were not filing statutory tax returns, fully establishing mens rea on the part of the assessee and taxing share of profits of such colourable devices (syndicates) in the hands of the assessee in all practicality is in the spirit of the 'Doctrine of lifting of corporate veil' in larger public interest?
HELD THAT:- As per the findings given by the CIT (A) and reproduced by the ITAT which remained uncontroverted by the Revenue, even in respect of some of the syndicates, separate assessments have already been framed by the various AO u/s. 144/153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act and while making assessments in the hands of such syndicates, the amount of undisclosed income earned by these syndicates, have already been determined.
It is also pertinent to mention that it is a well settled legal position that as per clause (a) of proviso to section 86 of the Act r.w.s 67A of the Act, if the assessee is a member in AOP/BOI and income earned from such AOP/BOI have been offered to tax, then, the share received by the assessee from such AOP/BOI after payment of due taxes cannot be taxed again in the hands of the recipient assessee.
CIT (A) as well as the ITAT referred to the legal position rendered in the case of ITO vs. Ch. Achatalya [1995 (12) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] and took the view that the income derived by various syndicates in which the assessee was found one of the members, was required to be assessed in the hands of such syndicates only and a direct assessment in the hands of the assessee could not have been made in respect of such income derived by the syndicates.
Thus, as per the scheme of the Act, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee as per clause (a) of the first proviso to section 86 r.w.s. 67A of the Act.
We are totally in agreement with the conclusion reached by both the lower appellate authority i.e. CIT (A) as well as the ITAT holding that, the assessee was a member of an association of persons or body individuals, share of members of such association of persons or body individuals were determinate and known. Such association of persons or body individuals were chargeable to tax on their total at the maximum marginal rate or any higher rate.
In such a factual position and circumstances, the share of profit/income received by the assessee from association of persons or body individuals/syndicates fall under the clause (a) of the first proviso to section 86 r.w.s 67A of the Act and, thus, the AO was not justified in making the addition in the hands of the assessee on account of his share in profits of syndicates and on account of his share of inadmissible expenses incurred by the syndicates.
Therefore, we are in agreement that, CIT (A) was right in deleting the addition in the hands of the assessee and, consequently, the sole ground of the Revenue being devoid of merits is not sustainable.
Thus, when tested on the anvil of the afore-noted legal principles, we are of the opinion that in these appeals no substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. This Court refrains from entertaining these appeals as there is no perversity in the order passed by the ITAT since the ITAT has dealt with all the grounds raised by the appellant in the order impugned and has passed a well reasoned and speaking order taking into consideration all the material available on record.
Tribunal being a final fact finding authority, in the absence of demonstrated perversity in its finding, interference with the concurrent findings of the CIT (A) as well as the ITAT therewith by this Court is not warranted.
No hesitation in holding that no question of law, more so a substantial one, arises from the order of the Tribunal requiring consideration of this court. There is no merit in these appeals as the Tribunal has not committed any error in deleting the additions which was made by the AO as the same cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Thus, present set of cases does not involve any substantial question of law so as to meet the provisions of Section 260-A of the Act for admitting these appeals.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1287
Revision u/s 263 - case was selected for scrutiny through CASS, and AO passed an order of assessment u/s 143(3) - income recognition - Treatment of income received from an arbitral award in the assessment year - HELD THAT:- ITAT has recorded the finding that the statutory notice was issued u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act by the AO with a specific query about the Nardana Claim - 1 & Nardana Claim - 2. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed a cogent reply.
AO's approach in accepting the explanation furnished by the assessee to him was not found unsustainable view as the liability of Nardana Claim - I & Nardana Claim - 2 could have been recognized as income in the AY 2018 -19.
The amount was paid to the assessee in the Assessment Year - 2018 - 19 after furnishing 100% bank guarantee on 100% margin, therefore, same was rightly shown as liability in the balance-sheet. It is not a case that the assessee has concealed the income of receipt by way of award. After the order passed by the Dhule Court in favour of the assessee on 15.10.2018, the income was shown in the next assessment year i.e. 2019 - 20.
ITAT did not find any fault in the approach of assessee, in view of the law laid down in the case of Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Limited [1986 (7) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] in which as held that as long as there remains a dispute / litigation, the income cannot be said to have 'accrued' or 'arisen' to the assessee. Approach of the assessee as well as the view taken by the AO is his favour cannot be termed as erroneous-cum-prejudicial to the interest of revenue. No substantial question of law.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1286
Ex-parte order of assessment by Income tax Department concluding a recovery amount - HELD THAT:- As submitted the order in original passed by the AO is already under challenge u/s 264 in a revision petition, which is still pending and the order impugned in the present writ petition is appealable by filing an appeal under Section 253 of the Act, 1961 before the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner has wrongly chosen the Forum of the writ petition for challenging the said order. He may very well maintain an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.
Petitioner admitted this legal position. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in-limine. However, the petitioner is given a liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the order dated 23.08.2023.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1285
Validity of assessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 - as per CIT(A) no income had been brought to tax on the grounds set out in the notice issued u/s 148 - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, the controversy involved in the present case – whether any addition can be made by the AO pursuant to initiation of re-assessment proceedings, notwithstanding that no addition is made on the grounds on the basis of which the assessment was reopened is covered by an earlier decision of this Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. [2011 (6) TMI 4 - DELHI HIGH COURT].
The said issue was also considered by this Court in the recent decision of ATS Infrastructure [2024 (7) TMI 1441 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - It is not disputed that the questions of law, as projected, are covered in favour of the assessee.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1284
Condonation of delay of 860 days in re-filing the present appeal - HELD THAT:- A bare perusal of the application indicates that the only ground for delay in re-filing is that there were a large number of appeals, which were filed between the period March, 2020 to March, 2022. And, the said appeals could not have been pursued on account of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.
It is clear that there is an inordinate delay of 880 days in re-filing the appeal. We do not find that there are sufficient grounds to justify such an inordinate delay. The application is, accordingly, dismissed.
Assessment u/s 153A - addition u/s 68 treating certain balances, as available in the books of accounts, as unexplained - CIT (A) allowed assessee appeal and the addition made by the AO was deleted on the ground that since no incriminating material was found during the search conducted, the re-assessment could not be sustained as relied on the earlier decision of Kabul Chawla [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] also confirmed by ITAT
HELD THAT:- Concededly, the said issue is covered by the earlier decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kabul Chawla (supra) which has been recently cited with approval by the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3 v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd [2023 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT] stating since no incriminating material was found during the search conducted, the re-assessment could not be sustained. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1283
TP Adjustment - MAM determination - TNMM v/s Berry ratio - decision of the TPO to reject the TNMM with Berry ratio (GP/VAE – gross profit/value added expenses) as the most appropriate method for determining the ALP - HELD THAT:- A change in the approach of assessment of tax, absent any statutory change, leads to uncertainty as to the cash flow/fund flow, which are the lifelines of commercial enterprises. Thus, unless there are cogent reasons to discard the method for transfer pricing adopted in the earlier assessment years, the TPO was required to follow the method consistently adopted for determining the ALP in prior years. We find no infirmity with the decision of the Tribunal in faulting the TPO for discarding the TNMM for determining the ALP as consistently followed in the past six assessment years (AYs 2009-10 to 2014-15), without sufficient reason.
We concur with the Tribunal’s view that the DRP had erred in finding that the TPO had provided justification for rejection of the TNMM. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the TPO’s decision to reject TNMM as the most appropriate method was without reasons.
TPO’s decision to adopt the residual method – “any other method” under Rule 10B (1) (f) of the Rules - Undeniably, Rule 10AB of the Rules does permit determination of the ALP by simulating the price that would have been charged in similar uncontrolled transactions under similar circumstances having regard to all relevant facts. However, the recourse to this method would be available only if none of the other methods are considered as the most appropriate method. However, as noted above, the TPO had provided no reasons for rejecting TNMM, which had been used in earlier years. The TPO had also not discussed the applicability of any other methods.
Tribunal had referred to the Guidelines issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (hereafter the Guidelines) in regard to use of “Other method” under Rule 10AB of the Rules.
Guidelines rightly observe that the Rule 10AB of the Rules does not describe any methodology but provides flexibility to determine the price in complex transactions where third party comparable prices/transactions may not exist. The said method would be most appropriate in cases where the other methods are found to be inapposite on account of difficulties in obtaining comparable data on account of uniqueness of the transactions, which are to be benchmarked.
It is difficult to accept that a business model that entails providing marketing support on commission basis is not unique or one that would warrant rejecting the TNMM.
Objection to the comparables used by the TPO for determining the ALP - A Non-Compete Arrangement is clearly not similar to the transaction of purchase of hardware, which is the international transaction to be benchmarked. It is also noticed that the transaction at Serial no.3 is in relation to educational services, which admittedly is not similar to the international transactions being benchmarked. In the circumstances, this Court had called upon Revenue to explain the similarity between the transactions used as comparables and those that were to be benchmarked. However, the counsel fairly stated that he could not.
Assessee had selected a set of four comparable transactions and used the TNMM with OP/VAE (Operating Profit / Value Added Expenses) as well as Berry ratio (gross profit / value added expenses) as PLI’s. The computation of the assessee’s PLI is significantly higher than the mean PLI of the comparable entities. In addition, the assessee had also furnished benchmarking studies of other entities engaged in trading by deleting the value of stocks and working capital to corroborate that the international transactions were at ALP.
No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1282
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - non compliance with the faceless assessment scheme u/s 151A - mandation of recording of satisfaction by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - Valid Jurisdiction of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) in issuing the notice - HELD THAT:- By reading all the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act' 1961 as also the notification dated 29.03.2022 issued by the Central Government framing scheme for "E-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment" under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 151A of the Act' 1961, we reach at an irresistible conclusion that the challenge to the notice under Section 148 dated 22.03.2024 for A.Y. 2021-2022 on the sole premise that the said notice could have been issued only through automated allocation in faceless manner and not by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), cannot be sustained.
The submission of petitioner that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) was not competent to issue the impugned notice u/s 148 in a case of Search and Seizure u/s 132are not convincing.
\Section 151A contemplates framing of the scheme by the Central Government by notification in the official Gazette, even for the purpose of issuance of notice under Section 148 in the case of re-assessment or sanction for issue of such notice under Section 151, with the aim to impart greater efficiency, transparency and accountability by eliminating the interface between the income tax authority and the assessee or any other person to the extent technologically feasible.
The challenge to the impugned notice on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Jurisdictional Assessing Authority is, accordingly, turned down.
Two Satisfaction Notes have been supplied to the petitioner in the compilation submitted on behalf of the revenue. It was also placed before us by revenue that after issuance of the impugned notice u/s 148 the instant case has proceeded to the stage of issuance of the notice under Section 142 (1). The said notice is also part of the record and has been issued by the Verification Unit of the Faceless Assessment Centre.
We, therefore, find it fit and proper to dispose of the present petitions with the observation that the petitioners may pursue his remedy matters before the Competent Authority and may ask for virtual hearing, if the need be, to participate in the proceedings, which have to be brought to their logical end, strictly in accordance with law.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1281
Order passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission to charge the interest @ 50% u/s 234A and interest u/s 234B and interest u/s 234C -
Maintainability of writ petition against the order of the Income Tax Settlement - HELD THAT:- The petitioners had filed the applications for settlement of their income-tax and wealth tax u/s 245-C of the Act, and after considering all the aspects, the Settlement Commission passed the orders.
It also granted immunity for the prosecution and at the same time, it reduced the interest chargeable under Section 234A by 50%, while interests in terms of Section 234B and C of the Act were directed to be charged from all the five applicants. However, interest u/s 220 (2) was waived.
The question regarding maintainability of the present writ petition against the order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission is no more res integra, in view of the law as settled in the case of Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi and others[1993 (4) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court while following its earlier judgement rendered in the case of R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatechand Nursing Das [1989 (1) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] thus objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents regarding non-maintainability of the present writ petition, is rejected.
Whether the discretion exercised by the Settlement Commission of reducing the interest by 50% in terms of the interest chargeable u/s 234A? - We would have to examine the provisions of Section 234A of the Act for the purpose, which provides for charging of interest for defaults in furnishing return of income, interest for defaults in payment of advance tax and for interest for deferment of the advance tax, respectively.
The provisions of imposing the interest is automatic, and if there is a default, interest is liable to be paid. However, by the various judgments passed Courts have taken a view that in circumstances which are beyond the control of the assessee in filing of the return in time, the interest can be waived.
In the present case, the Income Tax Settlement Commission accepted the version of the petitioners that the returns for the Assessment Year 1989-90 could not been filed in time, and were delayed on account of the fact that the seized papers were not available with them, and were lying with the Department. The Settlement Commission has also noticed that the letters and requests were made by the applicants/petitioners to the Department and looking into the said circumstances, interest had been reduced.
We find that while exercising the discretion by the Settlement Commission, no reasons have been assigned as to why the interest has been reduced by 50% only, and as to why the complete interest has not been waived off for the assessment year 1989-90.We, accordingly, accept the present writ petition, and waive the interest charged, in terms of Section 234-A of the Act.
Interest chargeable under Section 234B and 234C - Keeping in view that the advance tax was required to be paid, wherein there has been a default, in terms of the judgment passed in the case of Gulraj Engineering Construction Co [1995 (3) TMI 428 - INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION] we do not propose to waive the interest under Section 234B and 234C of the Act.
We are also not impressed by the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners in terms of the circular on waiver of interest (Annexure P-6) that the interest under Section 234B and 234C should be waived, as depositing of advance tax has nothing to do with the seizure of the books of accounts or during the course of proceedings for search, or seizure of cash.
As decided in Shelly Mehta [2024 (9) TMI 220 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] this Court has taken a view that the cash seized during the seizure cannot be a ground for waiver of advance tax or payment of tax for the subsequent year. In view thereto, we do not accept the contentions made by counsel for the petitioners and the present writ petition is allowed in part.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1280
Validity of Faceless assessment of income escaping assessment - Challenge to notice u/s 148 as non-compliance with Section 151A - notices issued by JAO instead of FAO - HELD THAT:- As decided in Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and Others [2024 (8) TMI 228 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] notice u/s 148 after introduction of Finance Act, 2021, cannot be issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The object of introduction of faceless assessment would be defeated if show cause notice u/s 148 is issued by Jurisdictional AO. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1279
Levy of penalty u/s 271AAA - requirement of "substantiating the manner in which undisclosed was derived" by the Assessee Company - HELD THAT:- As we read Section 271AAA(2) of the Act, it becomes manifest that an escape from the imposition of a penalty is dependent not only on a disclosure of income having been made in the course of a statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act but the assessee also standing obligated to specify the manner in which that income had been derived and thereafter substantiate the said disclosures.
As we read the order of the ITAT it is manifest that the assessee/appellant failed to meet the aforesaid requirements. We consequently find no merit in the instant appeal. Appeal dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
