|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 1644 Records
-
2025 (4) TMI 1284
Classifiation of goods - revision in the rate of tax - liquid carbon dioxide - taxable at 5% or 14.5%? - to be classified within Entry-100 (190) in Schedule-IV of the VAT Act or under Entry 100(190)? - time limitation for passing revisional order - revision order was passed after about six years from the date of service of the assessment order.
Time limitation for passing revisional order - HELD THAT:- In S. Kasi vs. State through the Inspector of Police, Samaynallur Police Station, Madurai District [2020 (6) TMI 727 - SUPREME COURT], the petitioner had sought statutory bail, available under Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the ground that the charge sheet, in his case, had not been filed within 60 days of his incarceration or of his being placed in judicial custody. The State contended that the period stipulated under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C., would stand extended by virtue of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 23.03.2020. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after going through the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in IN RE : COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION [2020 (5) TMI 418 - SC ORDER] held that 'To obviate the difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings.'
In view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Kasi vs. State through the Inspector of Police, Samaynallur Police Station, Madurai District, which was followed by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta and High Court of Delhi, it must be held that the extension of time granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the order dated 23.03.2020 and order dated 10.01.2022 would only extend limitation to litigants, who are seeking to approach the appropriate Courts and tribunals and such extension of limitation is not available to an authority acting under any statute. In the circumstances, the order of revision is beyond the period available under Section 32 of the VAT Act and is consequently non est.
Classification of goods - HELD THAT:- What is required to be seen is whether carbon dioxide, whether in liquid form or in gaseous form, would fall under Heading No.2811. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the description of goods in Entry 100(190) of Schedule-IV is other inorganic acids and other inorganic oxygen compounds of non-metals and carbon dioxide definitely would fall within such a category. The fact that there are other products mentioned under the main Heading No.2811 would not mean that carbon dioxide does not fall within Heading No.2811. In any event, Heading No.2811 21 specifically mentions carbon dioxide, it may however be noted that there is no qualification that carbon dioxide should be in a gaseous form. In the absence of any such qualification, carbon dioxide in gaseous form or liquid form, would fall under HSN Heading No.2811 and also in Entry No.100(190) of Schedule-IV of the VAT Act.
Conclusion - i) The order of revision is beyond the period available under Section 32 of the VAT Act and is consequently non est. ii) Carbon dioxide in gaseous form or liquid form, would fall under HSN Heading No.2811 and also in Entry No.100(190) of Schedule-IV of the VAT Act.
The order of revision requires to be set aside and is accordingly set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1283
Refund of input tax credit (ITC) paid on zero rated supply of services exported outside India - petitioner had voluntarily sought amendment of his registration to include supply of services, after the relevant period was over - HELD THAT:- Section 54(1) states that ―any person‖ can claim refund of any tax, or other amounts paid by the person. Section 16 (3) of the IGST Act permits refund to be claimed, in relation to zero rated supply of services only by a registered person. At first blush, there appear to be a conflict between Section 54 of the CGST Act and Section 16 of the IGST Act. However, Section 16 (3) of the IGST Act read with Section 54 (3) of the CGST Act, narrows down the general provision of Section 54 (1) of the CGST Act, by stipulating that it is only a registered person, who can claim refund in relation to zero rated supplies made with or without payment of tax.
In the present case, the petitioner is claiming, refund of tax paid, in relation to zero rated supply of services. The provisions of section 16(3) of the IGST Act and Section 54 (3) of the CGST Act would be applicable. A claim for refund can be made by the petitioner, only if it is a registered person.
Since Section 25(1) of the CGST Act states that the registration is to be done in such a manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, it would be necessary to look at the Rules regulating registration. The Rules for such purpose are the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short ‗the Rules‘). Rule 8 requires the person seeking registration to submit an application in Part-B of Form GST REG-01. After verification of the application, and after obtaining such clarification or information as required, the appropriate authority would issue a registration certificate, under Rule 10 of the Rules, in Form GST REG-06 - no importance is given to the details of the goods or services the person would be supplying. The only requirement is that any person, who would have to pay tax on such supply, whether of goods or services, would have to be registered.
Non-mention of the categories of supply being undertaken by the applicant / registered person, in the application form, cannot preclude grant of refund to such persons. By extension, the petitioner would be entitled to a refund, in relation to zero rated services, once the petitioner is a registered person. The petitioner would not be precluded from claiming such refund on the ground that the certificate of registration does not contain the details of the services which are being supplied.
Conclusion - Non-mention of the categories of supply being undertaken by the applicant / registered person, in the application form, cannot preclude grant of refund to such persons.
Both the writ petitions are allowed setting aside the orders of rejection of refund as well as the appellate orders, with a direction to the 2nd respondent to refund the input tax credit claimed by the petitioner, subject to verification of the claim and quantum of the claim.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1282
Legality of arrest of the petitioner under Section 132(1)(c) read with Section 132(1)(i) and Section 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) - absence of a prior adjudication or quantified demand under Section 74 of the CGST Act - fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the basis of allegedly fake invoices and non-physical receipt of goods - HELD THAT:- The service Tax Authorities before proceeding against the tax payer either for recovery of tax due or penalty or before deciding to lodge a criminal complaint must consider all the relevant documents in relation to receipt of goods and services and in case of contravention of Section 132 (1) (c) of Central Goods and services Tax Act if the Authorities are of the view that on offence under the said section is committed should either cause inspection at the business premises of the tax payer to satisfy themselves or ask the tax-payer for clarification before deciding to proceed against the tax-payer under Section 132 of CGST Act. It is to be remembered that the reputation of a business man tarnishes when a complaint is lodged against him and he is arrested in connection with his business activity. As CGST Authority is not an individual but Government Authority and ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution it is not only their duty to ensure revenue of the state in accordance with law but also to see that business men, tax payers are not unnecessarily harassed and their reputation is not tarnished and personal liberty is not unnecessarily infringed. Thus the Authority should proceed in a reasonable manner and apply their mind before deciding to set the criminal law in motion against a tax-payer.
In the instant matter the CGST Authority upon receiving the report of panchanama dated 30/03/2025 ought to have applied their mind and could have conducted further enquiry or give an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard before lodging the complaint on 31/03/2025 and arresting the petitioner. However as the CGST Authority has on enquiry collected some information and documents before lodging the complaint it would not be proper to make any further observation with regard to the merits of the case but it is necessary to decide as to whether petitioner should be granted bail.
In the instant case the petitioner is charged with committing an offence the maximum punishment of which, is five years. Now considering the materials on record, it appears that the relevant documents and information is with the respondent authority thus there is no scope for tampering evidence. As the petitioner has his business there is no chance to abscond. Moreover it appears from record that the petitioner has-co-operated with the respondent authority.
As a question of law is raised that once the petitioner has filed bail application before the Learned Sessions Court the bail application before this Court is not maintainable and the Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the bail application before Sessions Court is filed due to miscommunication and petition before session court will be withdrawn as not pressed, it is necessary to address on this issue - In this regard it is to be noted that although Section 439 CrPC read with Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 confers special power upon High Court and Court of Session to grant bail but once an application is filed before Court of Session another should not be filed in High Court, without withdrawal from sessions Court However as bail applications are not affirmed by the accused and the accused simply executes vokalatnama being in custody without having knowledge what specific steps are taken he cannot be made to suffer for no laches on his part.
The petitioner be released on bail with 2 sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each subject to satisfaction of Learned ACJM Siliguri.
Conclusion - The arrest was effected without any judicial warrant and significantly before any formal complaint had been filed before the Learned Magistrate. No adjudication proceedings show cause notice or quantification of demand under Section 74 of the CGST Act preceded the arrest, nor was there any material indicating culpable intent. The arrest therefore is not only disproportionate but wholly unjustified in law and facts.
Bail application allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1281
Levy of GST - assignment of leasehold rights of a plot of land allotted on lease by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC), and the buildings constructed thereon by the lessee, to a third party, on the payment of a lump-sum consideration - HELD THAT:- The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Chambers of Commerce and Industry and Others v/s Union of India and Others [2025 (1) TMI 516 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has taken a view that the assignment by sale or transfer of leasehold rights of the plot of land allotted by the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) to the lessee or its successor (assignor) in favour of the third party (assignee) for consideration shall be an assignment/sale/transfer of benefits arising out of immovable property by the lessee-assignor in favour of a third party (assignee) who would then become a lessee of GIDC in place of the original allottee-lessee. In such circumstances, the Gujarat High Court held that the provisions of Section 7 (1) (a) of the CGST Act providing for scope of supply read with Clause 5 (b) of Schedule II and Clause 5 of Schedule III would not be applicable to such a transaction and the same would not be subject to levy of CGST as provided under Section 9 of the CGST Act.
The Gujarat High Court held that the provisions of Section 7 (1) (a) of the CGST Act providing for scope of supply read with Clause 5 (b) of Schedule II and Clause 5 of Schedule III would not be applicable to such a transaction and the same would not be subject to levy of CGST as provided under Section 9 of the CGST Act.
In the facts of the present case, what is challenged by the Petitioner is the adjudication order passed by Respondent No.4 dated 30th August 2024 and the Rectification Order dated 24th December 2024 passed by the very same Respondent - Place the Writ Petition along with Writ Petition No. 14434 of 2023 and other connected Writ Petitions on 28th April 2025.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1280
Reopening of assessment against non non-existent company - Validity of notices issued under the unamended Section 148 post-01.04.2021 - Scope of new provision section 148A - As decided by HC [2025 (1) TMI 820 - DELHI HIGH COURT] notice is in the name of the petitioner and, therefore, cannot be faulted on account of the impugned notice having been issued in the name of a non-existent company.
HELD THAT:- Having heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and having gone through the materials on record, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.
Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1279
Revision u/s 263 - whether in the second round of litigation Commissioner of Income Tax was justified in invoking his power u/s 263? - as decided by HC [2024 (8) TMI 119 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] Tribunal was fully justified in concluding in favour of the assessee after noting that the assessing officer had conducted extensive enquiry on issues and directions mentioned in the order passed u/s 263 of the Act. Thus we find no grounds have been made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal.
HELD THAT:- Delay condoned. In the facts to the case, no interference is called for with the view taken by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as well as the High Court.
The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1278
Stay the recovery of tax demands - Appellant is a loss-making company - Whether unconditional stay should be granted? - disturbing the profit and loss account when capital expenditure is debited to the profit and loss account to avoid book profit tax in a manner not permitted by the Companies Act - HC [2025 (2) TMI 243 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] though some arguable issues have been raised, we do not think that this is a case where the decisions relied upon concerning a strong prima facie case would be attracted and entitle the Appellant to an unconditional stay on demand. Each case would turn on its facts.
The arguments based on high-pitched assessment, CBDT circulars and the decisions relied upon in that regard were mainly in the context of the first appeal against the assessment order. Today, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has decided the matter, confirming the demands.
The usual rule would be a deposit of the entire demanded amount. However, since the rectification application is pending and Appellant/Applicant has urged that if the same is allowed, the tax liability will be reduced to Rs. 68.91 Crores, some departure can be made from this usual rule. But no case is made out for an unconditional stay.
HELD THAT:- No case for interference is made out in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1277
Concession on law before the High Court - Taxation of income actually 'accrued' under mercantile system of accounting - Whether income in respect of unclaimed goods stored at CFS / ICD's maintained by the Assessee can be said to accrue merely because the goods continue to be stored indefinitely? - Whether ITATs direction to merely telescope income already offered for tax on receipt basis against Income taxable on accrual basis is misconceived / perverse on the facts of the case, and on an interpretation of section 150 (2) of the Customs Act 1962?" - High Court has recorded that the aforesaid aspects came to be decided on concession
HELD THAT:- If the Corporation believes that its counsel wrongly conceded before the High Court on a point of law, it was expected of the Corporation to immediately prefer an appropriate application before the High Court and get the matter clarified.
Its too late in the day to level such allegations. We condemn this practice which we have been noticing over a period of time in various litigations.Special Leave Petition is dismissed accordingly.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1276
Proceedings u/s 153C - issuance of the notice was preceded by the drawl of a Satisfaction Note by the jurisdictional AO - importance of material recovered in the course of a search or a requisition made and a right to reassess u/s 153A and 153C - HC [2024 (4) TMI 461 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held invocation of Section 153C in respect of AYs’ for which no incriminating material had been gathered or obtained denied. Satisfaction Notes also fail to record any reasons as to how the material discovered and pertaining to a particular AY is likely to “have a bearing on the determination of the total income” for the year which is sought to be abated or reopened in terms of the impugned notices.
Respondents have erroneously proceeded on the assumption that the moment any material is recovered in the course of a search or on the basis of a requisition made, they become empowered in law to assess or reassess all the six AYs’ years immediately preceding the assessment correlatable to the search year or the “relevant assessment year” as defined in terms of Explanation 1 of Section 153A. The said approach is clearly unsustainable and contrary to the consistent line struck by the precedents noticed
HELD THAT:- There is a delay of 142/149 days in filing the Special Leave Petitions which has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioners.
Even otherwise, we see no good reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the High Court. Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of delay as well as merits.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1275
Order u/s 127 (2) transferring the petitioner’s case from the jurisdictional officer in Mumbai to the counterpart in New Delhi - as decided by HC [2025 (1) TMI 461 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] convenience of the assessee is adverted to, but the impugned order observes that this aspect is secondary and may have to yield to the more significant interest of centralised and coordinated investigation. The order also records that the centralisation is for a limited period, and once the assessment concludes as per the norms, then there would be de-centralization. The impugned order also refers to certain precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High Courts.The charge that the impugned order is unreasoned must fail. At least prima facie, the reasons cannot be considered irrelevant or extraneous. T
HELD THAT:- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
No case for interference is made out in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending application also stands disposed of.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1274
Determination of expenses as percentage of receipt based on Contract - Entitlement to only 5% of the receipts of the appellant and not 5% of the gross advertising bills raised - HELD THAT:- Under clause-3 of the said agreement, the assessee had to pay 5% of the total receipts of STARTIME from the advertising. As per the profit and loss account annexed by the assessee, it is evident that the assessee has disclosed his income for the period ending 31st March 1993 at Rs. 63,43,480/- (Rupees sixty-three lac forty-three thousand four hundred eighty only).
AO therefore, in accordance with the terms of the agreement, found that the assessee had to pay PRIMETIME only 5% of the receipts i.e. receipt of Rs. 58,77,412/- (Rupees fifty-eight lac seventy-seven thousand four hundred twelve only). As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the assessee was required to pay 5% of the receipt of the assessee and not on 5% of the gross advertising bills.
Though the order was passed against the revenue, it did not challenge the order of appellate authority before the Tribunal. However, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which has been dismissed. The findings of fact recorded by the Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the tribunal with regard to the income from the advertisement i.e. sum of Rs. 63,43,480/- (Rupees sixty-three lac forty-three thousand four hundred eighty only), which is evident from the profit and loss account of the assessee, does not, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be either perverse or based on no evidence. The aforesaid findings of fact do not call for any interference in this appeal. Decided against the assessee.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1273
Validity of Assessment Order and the Show Cause Notices based upon which the Assessment Order was ultimately issued - Rule of exortion of alternate remedies - deposit of 20% of the tax demand as a pre-condition for interim relief pending the Appeal - HELD THAT:- Extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked to avoid any pre-deposit requirements or requirements for deposit of some amounts as a pre-condition for interim relief. Besides, this Court, cannot be flooded with Petitions of this nature on the spacious plea that such Petitions are decided faster than the statutory Appeals provided under the law.
Petitioner has alleged breach of natural justice. Since we propose to relegate the Petitioner to avail the alternate remedy, we do not wish to make any observations on the merits or de-merits of such a claim. However, record does not show that this was a case of no notice or no opportunity but instead, the allegations in the Petition concern no adequate notice or no sufficient opportunity. This would require investigation into factual aspects. No extra ordinary circumstances have been shown to deviate from the normal rule requiring exortion of alternate efficacious remedies.
In Oberoi Constructions Limited vs. Union of India [2024 (11) TMI 588 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] we have considered several decisions on the issue of exortion of alternate remedies. By applying the reasoning in the said decision and the decisions referred to therein, we decline to entertain this Petition but leave it open to the Petitioner to avail of alternate statutory remedy provided under the law.
All contentions of all parties are left open to be decided by the Appellate Authority should the Petitioner avail of such alternate remedy.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1272
Denial of benefit of the exemptions u/s 11/12 - payment of salary to a related party - HELD THAT:- There is no cavil that the salary paid to Ms Rai was not excessive or unreasonable considering her educational qualifications and the functions performed by her. ITAT had examined the evidence as to her qualifications as well as her contribution. Revenue also did not contest the said findings. As noted above, he had advanced submissions on the sole ground that if any part of the income of the trust is diverted for benefit of any of the prohibited person referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act, the entire income of the trust would be chargeable to tax.
If a person specified under sub-section (3) has rendered any service and the amount or allowance paid to such person is such, that is, reasonably paid for such services, the same cannot be deemed to have been applied for the benefit of the said person for the purposes of clauses (c) or (d) of Section 13(1) of the Act. This is apparent from the plain language of clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act. The opening words of the said clause must be read in conjunction with the last words of the said clause – “If any amount is paid by way of salary, allowance or otherwise in excess of what may be reasonably paid for such services”. Thus, if the amount paid for services is such as is reasonably payable for such service, the same cannot be construed as applied for the benefit of a prohibited person notwithstanding that it is paid to such a person. Consequently, such payment would not fall within the exception of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act.
The observations made by this Court in Director of Income Tax (Exemption) v. Charanjiv Charitable Trust [2014 (3) TMI 760 - DELHI HIGH COURT] must be read in the context of the facts of that case.
Decided in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1271
Denial of grant registration u/s 12AA - activities of the trust is in the nature of trade, commerce or business and covered by proviso to Section 2 (15) - HELD THAT:- Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner has to satisfy himself about the objects of the trust or institution and the genuineness of its activities as required under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) and compliance of the requirements under sub-clause (ii) of the said clause, and has to pass an order in writing registering the trust or institution and a copy of the order so passed will be sent to the applicant.
As in the matter of Ananda Social and Educational Trust [2020 (2) TMI 1293 - SUPREME COURT] held that newly registered trust on basis of its objects, without any activity having been undertaken, is entitled for registration u/s 12AA.
In the matter of Gujarat Cricket Association [2019 (11) TMI 35 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] the High Court of Gujarat has categorically held that the nature of the activities of the assesse i.e. Gujarat Cricket Sangh cannot take its colour from the nature of activities of the donor.
Considering the categorical finding recorded by the ITAT that the object of the assessee is charitable in nature, which could not be contradicted competently by learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue during the course of arguments, we are of the opinion that the ITAT is absolutely justified in holding that the assessee Society is entitled for registration u/s 12AA of the Act, which is pure and simple finding of fact based on the evidence available on record and is neither perverse nor contrary to law. Decided against Revenue.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1270
Addition under the provision of section 56(2)(x) - year of assessment - purchase/sale/transfer of the said rice mill took place in the previous year OR this year - whether the assessee was right in contending that they purchased the assets in question namely, a rice mill should be taken to be on the date when they entered into the agreement for sale of the property which was made on 13.12.2016 or when the registered sale deed was executed and registered on 21.3.2018?
HELD THAT:- A similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Balbir Singh Maini [2017 (10) TMI 323 - SUPREME COURT] In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of the various clauses in section 2 (47) of the Act and what was relevant in the said case was clause (vi) and the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not agree with the view taken by the High Court and held that under section 2 (47) (vi), any transaction which has the effect of transferring or enabling the enjoyment of any immovable property should come within its purview.
Therefore, the legal issue is well settled and the view taken by the tribunal that on execution of the agreement for sale no right accrues in favour of the assessee does not lay down on the correct legal principle. That apart, the sale transaction was assessed to tax for the assessment year 2017-18 and the said assessment was subject matter of reopening u/s 147 of the Act and the re-assessment was completed. In fact, the learned tribunal while considering the second issue as to the applicable circle rate of the property has held in favour of the assessee by taking note of the fact that the entire sale consideration has been paid at the time of execution of the agreement of sale and, therefore, the stamp duty value/circle rate as applicable on 30.12.2016 has to be applied in the assessee’s case.
Therefore, this finding on the second issue is contrary to the finding rendered by the tribunal on the first issue which is the preliminary issue. Thus, Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the transfer did not take place in favour of the assessee on and from the date of execution of the agreement of sale pursuant to which the entire sale consideration was paid and the assessee was put in possession of the property which was purchased by them.
The appeal is allowed. The order passed by tribunal is set aside and the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1269
Rejecting the Petitioner’s applications for unconditional stay - Both orders grant stay but are subject to a deposit of 20% of the tax demand - HELD THAT:- Upon due consideration of the Petitioner’s case, we find that the direction for a deposit of 20% of the tax demand as a pre-condition for stay was appropriate and warrants no interference. In the assessment order, an addition has been made on account of cash deposited in a bank account during the demonetisation period. The reasons given in the assessment order do lend support for at least depositing 20% of demand, and no prima facie case is made out for the Petitioner's unconditional stay before us.
As it is, even though the applications for unconditional stay were denied in 2020, the Petitioner has not paid any amount towards the tax demand. When the appeal pending, which the stay was sought, was disposed of Appellant states that such disposal was ex parte, and now the appeal has been restored, and it is pending. This means that the Petitioner has not paid any amount towards the tax demand for about five years. The Petitioner does not bother to furnish documents concerning its financial health today. The objective appears to be to delay the payment of taxes for as long as possible.
We decline to interfere with the impugned orders though, we agree with Appellant that the two authorities should have indicated some reasons for requiring the Petitioner to deposit 20% of the tax demand as pre-condition for a stay.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1268
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 as barred by limitation - extension granted by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (“the TOLA”) - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v/s Rajeev Bansal[2024 (10) TMI 264 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] held that the surviving time under the Act read with the TOLA will be available to the Revenue to complete the remaining proceedings in furtherance of the deemed notice, including issuance of re-assessment notice u/s 148 of the Act under the new regime.
Therefore, the surviving/balance time limit can be calculated by computing the number of days between the date of issuance of the deemed notice and 30/06/2021. Since, in the present case, the period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year expired on 31/03/2021, which falls within the time period from 20/03/2020 to 31/03/2021, in order to compute the surviving/balance time as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Since the relief has been granted to the assessee on the aforenoted jurisdictional aspect, the other grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal are rendered academic, and therefore, are left open. Appeal by the assessee is allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1267
Benefit of deduction u/s 80P - AO treated the interest income received from banks as income from other sources and denied the benefit of deduction - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that the money kept in the commercial and co-operative banks was not on account of money withheld which was due to its members. We note that the money deposited in the bank account of the assessee was out of the funds available from day-to-day operation of the society therefore, the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(a) of the Act as the interest income from deposits with banks is a business income. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1266
TP adjustment - interest on outstanding receivables from Associated Enterprises (AEs) by imputing interest thereon - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the audited financial statements of the assessee company, we find that the entire invoices are raised by the assessee on its AEs in foreign currency and realization were made in foreign currency and receivables are also reflected in foreign currency which got ultimately restated in Indian currency as per the Accounting Standard-11 issued by ICAI. Hence, LIBOR plus 400 points should be applied in the instant case.
AR prayed for grant of working capital adjustment to be applied on the comparable margin, which in either case, if granted, there would no need to separately impute interest on outstanding receivables as the same would get subsumed - Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of Kusum Healthcare [2017 (4) TMI 1254 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - We find that the DRP had also directed the ld TPO / AO to grant working capital adjustment to the assessee which has not been followed by the ld TPO. Hence, the order passed by the TPO had to be considered as not passed in consonance with the binding directions u/s 144C(10) of the Act of ld DRP. On this limited count itself, the order of TPO deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. Accordingly, original Ground Nos. 2 and 3 raised by the assessee are hereby allowed.
Action of the AO in enhancing the income and the tax liability in the final assessment order which was not even proposed by him in the draft assessment order - The draft assessment order gets merged with the order of the ld DRP and the final assessment order is merely giving effect to the directions of the ld DRP. As per section 144C(10) of the Act, directions given by the DRP are binding on the ld AO. Hence, AO could not carry out even arithmetical exercise in the final assessment order proceedings which is passed pursuant to the directions of the ld DRP. Accordingly, any issue that was not subject matter of consideration in the draft assessment proceedings or before the ld DRP, cannot take its birth strangely for the first time in the final assessment order. The alternative recourse is provided in the statute for the same. Hence, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed.
Chargeability of interest u/s 234A AO is directed to verify the extended due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act for AY 2020-21. Accordingly, the ld AO is directed to decide the chargeability of interest u/s 234A of the Act.
Chargeability of interest u/s 234B is consequential in nature.
Interest u/s 234C the law is settled that the same has to be charged only on the returned income and not on the assessed income.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1265
Revision u/s 263 - exemption u/s 11 and 12 denied to assessee only on account of late filing of Form No. 10B - HELD THAT:- In the case of Brahmchari Wadi Trust [2025 (3) TMI 1012 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held that where delay in filing Form No. 10 by assessee-trust had occurred due to internal administrative problems of assessee-trust, since assessee-trust for past many years had substantially satisfied conditions for claiming exemption u/s 11, exemption u/s 11 could not be denied for non-filing of Form No. 10 in time.
Delay in filing of Form 10B in the instant case has caused no prejudice to the interest of the Revenue, since such delay is only a procedural lapse. Accordingly, we are of the view that the present 263 order is liable to be set-aside. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
............
|
9911796707
