|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 1733 Records
-
2019 (6) TMI 1375
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - furnishing of income under an incorrect head - assessee shown stock appreciation rights and gain as capital gain in place of perquisites under salary - whether short payment of taxes does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income? - HELD THAT:- Assessee that there had been no deliberate concealment nor there had been deliberate non disclosure and that the assessee disclosed the amount, which, according to the Department, should have been shown as a perquisite because the employer had treated it as a perquisite and deducted tax at source. Though the assessee offered an explanation, it was not found to be acceptable by the AO.
CIT(A), when he proposed to confirm the findings of the AO, should record his own independent reasons as to how the conduct of the assessee was deliberate in not disclosing the perquisites shown by the employer in Form 16 and as to how such a deliberate conduct would amount to concealment of income. CIT(A) did not give independent reasons in support of his conclusions except stating that the assessee's conduct was deliberate. This would be sufficient to set aside the orders passed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal, in our considered view, examined the conduct of the assessee.
The assessee, who is a salaried employee, had disclosed the value of the stock appreciation rights and gain thereof and claimed the same as capital gain. AO treated the gain as a revenue receipt and levied tax. In such circumstances, whether it could have been stated that there was concealment of income or whether the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Tribunal rightly held that it is nobody's case that the assessee concealed the allotment of stock appreciation rights or gain arising out of such appreciation.
In fact, there had been a difference of opinion or difference in interpretation of the manner, in which, the assessee interpreted the returns. Therefore, when there were two opinions possible, it cannot be stated that the conduct of the assessee amounted to deliberate concealment of income with certain mala fide intentions.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1374
TP Adjustment - non speaking order - silent in considering submissions of the assessee - HELD THAT: - The ld.CIT(A) reproduced grounds of appeal on page no.1 and 2, and thereafter reproduced submissions of the assessee upto page no.44. In other words, he has reproduced 40 pages of written submission given by the assessee, and thereafter concluded the finding in five-six lines. This order has been followed blindly in other years without any application of mind. Thus, it is a just non-speaking order at the end of the ld.CIT(A).
Full Bench of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Roadmaster Industries of India P.Ltd. Vs. ACIT, [2006 (5) TMI 86 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] has considered large number of judgments at the end of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as at the end of Hon’ble High Courts in order to propound why reasons are necessary in support of conclusions of any adjudicating authority.
If we visualize written submissions and finding given by the ld.CIT(A), then it is apparent that such finding does not contain any adjudication on the submissions of the assessee and not sustainable. Therefore, we set side finding of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue in all three years and restore for readjudication.
Deduction u/s 80HHC - HELD THAT:- Deduction u/s 80HHC is to be computed after reducing deduction allowed u/s 80IA and 80IB (b) excise duty and sales-tax are to be included in the total turnover for the purpose of calculating 80HHC as required under the formula, and (c) sale proceeds of DEPB licence is to be reduced from profit of the business to the extent of ₹ 4,89,81,959/-.
For this purpose, the AO has relied upon the amendment brought in Finance Act, 2005 with retrospective effect. It was pointed out that this amendment has been held as unconstitutional by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Avani Exports [2012 (7) TMI 190 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] . The matter was set aside to the AO by the Tribunal with a direction to recompute the deduction in view of amendment by the Taxation Law.
AO has passed a fresh assessment order on 30.12.2011. The ld.CIT(A) has taken cognizance of the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional high Court which was rendered on 2.7.2012. Thus, the sale proceeds of DEPB licence are not required to be excluded from the profit of the business for calculating 80HHC. CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, and there is no error in appreciating the facts and circumstances. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this ground of appeal.
Addition u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- As far as the finding of the CIT(A) that disallowance cannot be made with help of Rule 8D is concerned, we do not find any error in his order, because Rule 8D has been made applicable w.e.f. 1.4.1981 [Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Godrej & Boyce vs. CIT, [2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]
Whether the interest expenses could be allocated for disallowance of earning of exempt income - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) made an analysis and observed that the assessee has more surplus funds out of which it can be inferred that the investment was made - CIT(A) has made reference to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. We do not find any error in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue for placing this reliance as well as for holding that since the assessee was having more interest free funds, then the interest expenses cannot be carved out with help of formula given in Rule 8D. The ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the disallowance with regard to the interest expenditure is concerned.
Disallowance worked by the CIT(A) is concerned, it is not on sound footing. The details of dividend income has been placed in tabular form and reproduced on page no.13 of the impugned order. According to the ld.counsel for the assessee these are old investments, and this year only activity relating to such exempt income is receipt of six cheques. There is no other activity which requires incurrence of expenditure.
Estimation of expenditure at ₹ 12.51 lakhs is on the higher side. We scale down it to ₹ 1,50,000/- which can take care of all other necessary expenditure, if any, incurred by the assessee. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the ground raised by the Revenue. It is rejected.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1373
TP Adjustment - adjustment made on the basis of Share Purchase Agreement ('SPA'/'Agreement') - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 [2018 (8) TMI 1708 - ITAT MUMBAI] same are not applicable to the facts of the present case and we are of the view that since chapter 10 pre-supposes the existence of "income" and lays down machinery provison to compute ALP of such income, if it arises from an "International transaction". Section 92 is not an independent charging section to bring in a new head of income or to charge tax on income which is otherwise not chargeable under the Act. Accordingly, since no income had accrued to or received by the assessee u/s 5, no notional income can be brought to tax u/s 92 - direct for deletion of impugned TP adjustment. Ground No. 1 stands allowed.
Disallowance u/s 14A - assessee earned exempt dividend income of ₹ 9.16 Lacs during the impugned AY and held investment of ₹ 668.69 Lacs - HELD THAT:- Since no disallowance was offered by the assessee against the same, AO compute expense disallowance of ₹ 3.21 Lacs, being 0.5% of average investments, in terms of Rule 8D(2)(iii). The same upon, confirmation by Ld. first appellate authority is under appeal before us. CIT(A) has directed AO to exclude those investments which may not be capable of yielding exempt income to the assessee.
AR, briefly submitted that keeping in view the decision of Delhi Tribunal (Special Bench) rendered in ACIT Vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] AO may be directed to take into consideration only those investments which have actually yielded any exempt income during the year. Concurring with the same, we direct AO to take into consideration only those investments which have actually yielded any exempt income during the year. The assessee is directed to provide requisite information, in this regard. This ground stand partly allowed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1372
Deduction u/s 54F - claim of deduction disallowed by the AO for the reason that on the date of transfer of land, assessee has owned more than one residential house - assess contention that he has demolished one house for new comstruction - HELD THAT:- As noted that assessee has produced application that was filed by the assessee only in November 2009 requesting for permission for development of plot and in the building plan submitted before PMC authorities, the existing building, which was claimed to have been demolished in May, 2009 was shown as “to be demolished”. He therefore concluded that “to be demolished” proved beyond doubt that the existing bunglow was not demolished till June / July – 2010. He also noticed that the property tax in respect of the said property was paid as applicable for residential house and not for open plot even for the year 2009 and 2010. CIT(A) therefore did not accept the claim of the assessee that the existing construction of the property was demolished and the property became a vacant plot on the date of transfer of land. With respect to other residential properties owned by assessee, CIT(A) has given a finding that assessee owns three flats and that since the assessee was the owner of more than one residential house as on the date of transfer of land, he was not eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the Act. - Decided against assessee.
Depreciation on the civil foundation work of windmill - rate of depreciation applicable is 10% as civil structure or 80% being the rate applicable to windmill - HELD THAT:- We find that the identical issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Cooper Foundary Pvt. Ltd [2011 (6) TMI 837 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] in assessee’s favour wherein it had upheld the order of Tribunal granting depreciation @ 80% on the foundation cost incurred for installation of windmill. Before us, Revenue has not placed any contrary binding decision in its support. We therefore relying on the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court hold that on the cost incurred for installation of windmill, the depreciation is to be allowed at the rate which is applicable to windmill. We direct accordingly and thus, the ground of the assessee is allowed.
Deemed rental income of residential house u/s 23(4) - Case of assessee that the residential houses owned by assessee are his stock-in-trade and therefore, no addition on account of deemed rent can be made - HELD THAT:- We find that Ld.CIT(A) while upholding the addition has given a finding that three flats at Lake Town were held by the assessee as capital assets and were not business assets of the assessee. With respect to bunglow at Prabhat Road, he has noted that the bunglow was not demolished as on 31.03.2010 and thus the assessee owned more than one house during the year and therefore additions made by AO was as per the provisions of Sec.23(4). Before us, no material has been placed by Ld.A.R. to point out any fallacy in the findings of Ld.CIT(A). We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of Ld.CIT(A) and thus the ground No.3 of assessee is dismissed.
Disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- We find that while upholding the disallowance, Ld.CIT(A) has noted that proper satisfaction was recorded by AO before disallowing expenses. He has further noted that substantial investments were made by the assessee and therefore the contention of the assessee that no expenses have been incurred for earning exempt income cannot be accepted. He has also noted that disallowance has been made for administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the I.T. Rules. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of Ld.CIT(A) has been pointed out by Ld.A.R. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of Ld.CIT(A) and thus, the ground No.4 of assessee is dismissed.
Disallowance on adhoc basis on account of personal element - HELD THAT:- We find that while upholding the order of AO, CIT(A) has noted that assessee was not in a position to furnish any log book indicating the use of vehicles for exclusive and wholly for the purpose of business and that assessee was also not having any personal vehicles to show that it was used for personal purposes. Even with respect to disallowance on account of conveyance and travelling, he has noted that no evidence to support his case was filed before Ld.CIT(A).
-
2019 (6) TMI 1371
TP adjustment - fees for receipt of management services - TNMM - TPO did not approve the aggregation of the international transaction and opined that such transaction was required to be benchmarked separately - TPO recomputed profit margins under the Manufacturing and Trading segments by excluding payment of Fees of Management services
HELD THAT:- It is the higher of actual income or the arm’s length income from an international transaction, which is taken into consideration for computing the total income. It does not mean that an actual more income from an international transaction visa- vis its arm’s length income should be combined with another unrelated transaction which gives actual income less than its arm’s length income and then both of them be processed together so as to set off the income (Transacted income minus arm’s length income) from the first transaction with the potential income arising from the second transaction (arm’s length income minus transacted income).
When we consider more than one separate transaction under the combined umbrella of TNMM, it is quite possible that a probable addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment arising from one or more of the international transactions may be grabbed by the income from another international transaction giving higher income on transacted value.
In the case of Magneti Marelli Powertrain India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [2016 (11) TMI 123 - DELHI HIGH COURT], the Hon’ble High Court did not approve clubbing of `Technical fees’ with other transactions under the Manufacturing segment as without technical know-how even the production could not have been possible. Extantly, we are dealing with a situation in which the assessee is trying to club the transaction of payment of Fees for Management services with others, which is a step further away from technical knowhow, in the process of manufacturing. It is held that the international transaction of payment of Fees for Management services cannot be clubbed with other international transactions for showing the same at ALP. It needs to be benchmarked separately as has been held by the authorities below.
Any services were actually availed by the assessee - Each monthly invoice runs into several pages with complete description of the services rendered with date of rendition of services, employee’s name who rendered the service, level of service, description of service, place at which service was rendered, duration for which service was rendered, hourly rate at which payment was to be made, and total amount payable for such service.
There is proper recording of the Minutes of meetings. Copies of such Minutes have been placed in the paper book, exhibiting complete details such as location, date, participants, minutes and detailed accounts of issues discussed. The details of workshops for Technical Competence, so on and so forth is also given. From the above discussion, there is absolutely no doubt in our mind that Schaeffler China did render management support services to the assessee and ex consequenti, it is held that the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in accepting the rendition of Management support services by Schaeffler China to the assessee.
Whether such services are in the nature of stewardship activity as has been held by TPO? - each monthly invoice runs into several pages with complete description of the services rendered with date of rendition of services - HELD THAT:- We have noticed the description of services performed by Schaeffler China under the broader heads by observing that such activities extend to “Business Development”, “Finance & Controlling Services”, “Human Resources services, “Purchasing/Procurement services”, “Supply chain Management services”, “Process and Information services” and “Distribution sales services” etc. It is ergo patent that such services are in the nature of normal business services performed with a view to enable the assessee to carry out its business operations producing effect on the assessee company. In our opinion, these do not qualify as `stewardship activities’. The impugned order is overturned pro tanto.
ALP of the international transaction of payment of Fees for Management services - NIL ALP - HELD THAT:- we find that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Lever India Exports Ltd. [2017 (2) TMI 120 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has also held that the TPO's jurisdiction is to only determine the ALP of an International Transaction. It is not a part of the TPO's jurisdiction to consider whether or not the expenditure passed the test of Section 37 of the Act and/or genuineness of the expenditure, which has to be done by the AO. Respectfully following the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court , we hold that the transfer pricing addition based on the Nil ALP determination by the TPO by treating the services rendered by the AE as shareholder services, is vitiated.
The authorities below have not disputed the correctness of the invoices raised by Schaeffler China. Though no separate ALP determination of the international transaction of payment of Management services fees is available for the year under consideration, but one thing which is clear is that the payment of ₹ 5,65,53,971/- and odd to Schaeffler China is towards actual expenses incurred plus 5% mark-up, which is in the nature of Cost plus method prescribed under rule 10B(1)(c) of the I.T. Rules. Even if, we proceed with the assumption that the mark up of 5% is not at ALP, which should be as low as 1% or even less than that, still the difference arising on account of such mark-up going even up to 0% in a comparable uncontrolled situation, would be within +/-5% range, not requiring any transfer pricing adjustment.
It is held that the assessee entered into an agreement with Schaeffler Holding (China) Co., Ltd for receipt of “Management support Services”, for which separate benchmarking was required to be done. Such services were actually rendered. These services are not in the nature of stewardship or shareholder activity. The payment to Schaeffler Holding (China) Co. Ltd. at the actual costs incurred in providing such services plus 5% mark-up is at ALP, which does not require any transfer pricing addition. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order by holding that the international transaction of payment of Fees for Management services at ₹ 5,65,53,971/- is at ALP, which does not require any transfer pricing addition. - In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1370
Deduction u/s 80IAB - interest from fixed deposit - HELD THAT:- we are of the view that the issue has been squarely covered by the decision of the Hon‟ble ITAT [2014 (8) TMI 959 - ITAT MUMBAI] and subsequently the issue has been decided by the CIT(A) in favour of the assessee in the Assessment years of 2011-12 & 2012-13 which are not subsequently changed and varied. It was held that the FDs were made out of funds received for the business of the appellant in the form of grants for land acquisition or non-convertible debentures and not out of any surplus funds generated from the business of the appellant.The facts are not distinguishable at this stage also. No decision the contrary to the said decision has been placed on record, therefore, in the said circumstances, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and decide this issue in favour of the assessee against the revenue.
Deduction u/s 80IAB - interest income arise out of advances to contractor - HELD THAT:- Since the matter of controversy has duly been covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon‟ble ITAT in the assessee‟s own case for the A.Y.2008-09 [2014 (8) TMI 959 - ITAT MUMBAI], therefore, by honoring the said decision we allowed the claim of the assessee.
Deduction u/s 80IAB - income from processing fees and lease premium - HELD THAT:- Issue has duly been covered by the decision of the Hon‟ble ITAT in the assessee‟s own case for the A.Y.2007-08 in [2013 (11) TMI 933 - ITAT MUMBAI] . We also find support of the decision in case of Shreeji Exhibitors Vs. ACIT [2015 (8) TMI 886 - ITAT MUMBAI], Asiatic Stores & Soda Fountain Vs. ITO, [2017 (10) TMI 1080 - ITAT MUMBAI] . Taking into account all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the income in question is liable to be treated as income from business.
Taxability of grant from government under head business and rental income - deduction u/s 80IAB - HELD THAT:- Taking into account all the facts and circumstances and by relying upon the above mentioned law in City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2012 (9) TMI 331 - ITAT MUMBAI] , we are of the view that the grant in sum of ₹ 1 crores released by Government of Maharashtra on account of repairs and maintenance of airports is not liable to be treated as income of the assessee being in the nature of capital receipt.
We noticed that the main object of the assessee is sale and leasing of land. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the rental income to the tune of ₹ 1,05,000/- is liable to be treated as income business. Accordingly, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee against the revenue.
Addition u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- The factual position is not in dispute as the assessee did not earn any exempt income. It is quite clear that the assessee did not earn exempt income in the relevant Assessment Year, therefore, there should not be disallowance in view of the provisions u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and hold that the no disallowance is required in view of the provisions u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1369
Addition of transfer of accumulated profit - charitable institution - accumulation of income u/s 11(2)/(3) - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble High Court, while quashing the notice u/s 148 for assessment years 1998-99 to 2000-01, held that any accumulated profit u/s 11(3) in the hands of the assessee of the past years is liable to be taxed in assessment year 2001-02. Thus, the limited question which we are required to adjudicate in this appeal is whether there were any accumulated profits in the hands of the assessee within the meaning of Section 11(3) which can be taxed on account of merger of the assessee with EHIRC, Chandigarh. We further find that learned CIT(A) has given the finding that there was no accumulated profit u/s 11(2).
Learned CIT(A), after considering the facts of the case in detail including the application of income in each assessment year beginning from assessment year 1986-87, has arrived at the conclusion that there was no accumulation of income in any of the years. On the other hand, the application of income was more than the prescribed limit of 85%. The above finding of fact recorded by the CIT(A) has not been controverted by the Revenue. The assessee has stated before the learned CIT(A) as well as before us that the assessee has not accumulated any income in any of the past assessment year by filing application as prescribed in that Section.
The Revenue neither in the assessment order nor during appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) including the remand report before learned CIT(A) has been able to establish that there was any accumulation of income as provided in Section 11(2). Before us also, no evidence is brought on record by the Revenue to establish any accumulation of profit u/s 11(2) by the assessee society. In view of the above, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A) in this regard. The same is sustained and all the grounds raised by the Revenue in this appeal are dismissed.
Addition on account of capital gain - EHIRC, Delhi merged with the assessee and all the assets and liabilities vested with the assessee society was converted into a company limited by shares - AO concluded that there is transfer of the assets owned by the assessee AOP to another legal entity within the meaning of Section 2(47) which would attract capital gain u/s 45(1)
HELD THAT:- We find the issue to be squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Texspin Engineering and Manufacturing Works [2003 (3) TMI 56 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. The ratio of their Lordships would be squarely applicable to the case of the assessee because in this case also, the assessee AOP was converted into a company under Part IX of the Companies Act. Thus, till the time of conversion, the AOP remained in existence and the moment conversion took place, the company came into existence. However, the AOP and company never remained in existence simultaneously. Section 45(1) would be applicable on transfer of a capital asset.
The transfer of a capital asset is possible only when there is a transferor and the transferee. In the absence of existence of the two entities, the transferor and the transferee, there cannot be any transfer. Similarly, in the absence of two entities, the consideration cannot pass from transferor to the transferee. In view of the above, we hold that the above decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court would be squarely applicable to the case of the assessee and has rightly been followed by the learned CIT(A). No contrary decision is brought to our knowledge. In view of the above, we, respectfully following the above decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Texspin Engineering and Manufacturing Works (supra), uphold the order of learned CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1368
Addition of business promotion expenses - purchase of diamond set and watches - personal purposes - HELD THAT:- The AO merely doubted nature of two expense vouchers incurred on account of purchase of diamond set and watches, aggregate of which comes to ₹ 8,82,684/-, came to a conclusion that the entire expenditure was not wholly incurred for business purposes. Thus the AO made the disallowance of expenditure on ad-hoc basis. The concept of ad-hoc disallowance has been repeatedly deterred by the Hon’ble High Court and addition made on such basis is liable to be set aside. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Ms. Shehnaz Hussain, [2003 (7) TMI 27 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that addition made on estimate and hypothetical grounds without any concrete material or evidence cannot be sustained.
Addition made u/s 40A(3) - reimbursements made b to various employees of the company and no single payment exceeds ₹ 20,000/- - HELD THAT:- It is pertinent to mention that the amount booked by the assessee company is in the form of reimbursement and not the payment to the outside party in excess of ₹ 20000. From the records it can be seen that no single expenditure incurred by Mr. P. Bala Krishnan is in excess of ₹ 20000/-. All these facts were taken into consideration by the CIT(A) and has rightly given the findings by deleting the disallowance.
Addition of legal and professional charges for compliance - ignoring the fact that separate auditing fees has been paid - HELD THAT:- The assessee had duly furnished supporting evidences in the form of ledger, confirmation from other part, etc. Payments were made vide banking channel. TDS was duly deducted on the said payments. The said receipts were made part of its income by the other company. All these facts and evidences were not controverted by the Assessing Officer in the remand report. The assessee also clarified before the Revenue that the services received from such party were not on account of auditing but on account of monthly accounting services and Annual Compliance Services to take care of statutory functions as mentioned in the order of the CIT(A). Thus, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A).
Addition of legal and professional charges paid to sister concern - no written agreement with the sister concern from whom the company takes services. - HELD THAT:- M/s ND Satcom Grintex Communication Ltd. has provided services to the company related to proposals which include satellite communication component for the projects the company proposes to take up with the Indian Navy, Air Force, Army DSA, ISRO and with system integrators such as BEL, ECIL, Tata, HCL, L&T etc. The parties have confirmed that the services were rendered and responded to notice u/s 131 of the Act. Therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted this addition.
Addition of office expenses - HELD THAT:- The Assessing Officer merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises made the ad-hoc additions without bringing any specific reasons to that effect. The CIT(A) has rightly deleted this addition and there is no need to interfere with the findings.
Addition of travelling and conveyance expenses - HELD THAT:- In the remand report itself, the Assessing Officer remarked that “I have examined the bills and vouchers of the assessee company which seems to be genuine..” Thus, the Assessing Officer has not disputed the genuineness of the evidences produced before the CIT(A). Therefore, after going through the evidences and Remand Report, the CIT(A) has arrived at a proper conclusion of deleting the said addition. - Revenue is dismissed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1367
Penalty u/s 271AAB - no incriminating evidence, papers/documents/stock/cash were found during the search operation other than the statement - addition offered for taxation by the assessee suo moto in order to buy peace of mind - AO treated the assessee’s additional income to the tune of ₹ 31,00,00,000/- to be representing its undisclosed income u/s 271AAB Explanation (c) - HELD THAT:- We find no merit in Revenue’s instant arguments in light of decision of Tribunal’s coordinate bench’s in DCIT vs. M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. [2019 (2) TMI 1651 - ITAT KOLKATA] pertaining to the very search as well as above stated incriminating documents deleting identified penalty. it was held that income offered by the assessee through its joint declaration was neither represented by any assets found in the course of search nor represented by any entry made in the books of accounts or other documents or transactions found in the course of search and income voluntarily offered by the assessee did not come within the ambit and scope of the expression ‘undisclosed income’ as defined for the purposes of Section 271AAB.
It has come on record that the Revenue seeks to rely upon the same very material as it was used in assessee’s sister concern’s case pertaining to the very search wherein its identical grievance stands declined vide above extracted detailed discussion. We adopt the said reasoning mutatis mutandis in the instant case as well as no distinction on facts and law has been pointed out at the Revenue’s behest. The CIT(A)’s order under challenge deleting the impugned penalty is confirmed accordingly. - This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1366
Disallowance of commission payment - payee not found address provided by the assessee during remand proceedings - HELD THAT:- The transactions, in question, relate to F.Y 2008-09 while so, a verification during the month of July 2015 cannot give the correct fact as to whether Mr. Shah was at that address. He would have shifted.
The assessee is right when she says that she cannot keep track of the person with whom she had done transactions. AO in the remand report confirms that the address given by the assessee is same that which was given by Mr. Shah in his PAN card. AO also confirms that Mr. D.R. Shah has filed his return of income for that particular assessment year. This confirms the identity of Mr. D.R. Shah.
The genuineness of the transactions is proved by the fact an MOU was entered and that in each of the bills/invoices raised, the details of services rendered, the details of transactions for which commission was paid, was mentioned. Disallowance in question is bad in law. We direct the A.O to allow the claim of assessee of payment of commission. In the result, the ground of the assessee is allowed.
Disallowance of Written off of bad debts - HELD THAT:- Assessee was not able to substantiate to the revenue authorities, as to whether the amount, in question, was taken into account in computing income of the assessee in any of the previous years. Thus, we hold that the amount was rightly disallowed u/s 36(1)(vii).
Be as it may, the assessee had written off this amount as recoverable. This amount was held as a current asset by the assessee and has been written off in books of accounts after a number of assessment years on the ground that the same had been irrecoverable. the amount, in question, has to be allowed as the business loss u/s 37(1). The Assessing Officer is directed to do so.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1365
Addition u/s 68 - assessee opted to declare income u/s 44AD @ 8% - HELD THAT:- Section 44AD gives an option to the assessee to offer income on presumptive basis. These are special provisions. The assessee has opted for the same and offered to tax income at the rate of 8% of his turnover. The issue is whether, the AO can examine statement of accounts in such cases, make additions towards undisclosed purchases, undisclosed expenditure, under valuation of closing stock etc., The turnover declared by the assessee is accepted by the revenue. In my considered opinion such additions go against the spirit of the Act. Section 44AD was introduced to help the small traders who have difficulties in maintaining books of account and other records. Tax is levied on presumptive basis.
Thus delete the addition in question. The case-law relied upon by the CIT(A) are not applicable to the facts of the case, as in that case what was held is that an addition u/s 68 could be made when income has been estimated. AO nor the CIT(A) have given any reason as to why the provisions of Section 44AD of the Act are not applicable to this case.
Hence, we delete all the addition made in this case. The income returned, is directed to be accepted, by the Assessing Officer. - Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1364
Depreciation on Goodwill - AO disallowed as assessee has not claimed depreciation on goodwill at the time of filing of return - HELD THAT:-We find that the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd. [2012 (8) TMI 713 - SUPREME COURT] , wherein it was held that “Goodwill is an asset under Explanation 3(b) to section 32(1) and, thus it is eligible for depreciation.
We uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue-in-dispute. Accordingly, ground of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1363
Bail application - Service of detention order - section 3(3) of Conservance of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - HELD THAT:- Respondent no. 3 Detaining authority was aware of the requirement of serving orders of detention and grounds of detention with relied upon documents. It is in the face of this requirement and knowledge it passed the order which we have mentioned supra. The submission that preparation of pages and bulk of record did not enable the respondents to serve relied upon documents simultaneously with the order of detention upon the petitioners, is therefore, unsustainable. The authorities could have in appropriate cases indicated that because of huge records and necessary clerical work, relied upon documents would be served in terms of section 3(3) of COFEPOSA Act. The order does not carry any mention on these lines and on the contrary it gives an impression to the contrary.
The impugned order of detention is unsustainable - appeal allowed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1362
Admissibility of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor - Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 r/w Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The documentary evidence placed on the case file is sufficient in order to ascertain the existence of a default on the part of the Corporate Debtor. The Financial Creditor has fulfilled all the requirements of law including the name proposed for appointment of IRP after obtaining consent in Form-2. Hence, the Application stands admitted. The commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is ordered which ordinarily shall get completed within 180 days, reckoning from the day this order is passed.
Mr. A.R. Ramasubramania Raja is hereby appointed as IRP as has been proposed by the Financial Creditor - The moratorium is hereby declared which shall have effect from the date of this Order till the completion of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Application admitted.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1361
CENVAT Credit - input services - Goods Transport Agency service - time limitation - reverse charge mechanism - merger of service tax and Cenvat credit as on 30/12/2004 - HELD THAT:- Tribunal, relied on decisions of Delhi High Court in the cases of CST Vs. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. [2012 (12) TMI 734 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and CC Vs. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. [2010 (5) TMI 608 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] to allow the claim. In both the above cases, the court after placing reliance upon Rule 3(4)(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 held that the Cenvat credit available could be utilised by the respondent to discharge its obligation of payment of service tax on GTA service on reverse charge mechanism.
No distinguishing features in fact or in law are brought to our notice which would justify our taking a different view. The question of law as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law.
Extended period of limitation - demand of the revenue is time barred - HELD THAT:- On introduction of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the respondent by its letter dtd.19/01/2005 brought to the notice of the authorities that in view of the new Rules, it is permitted to utilise the service tax credit for payment of excise duty on manufactured goods and vice-versa.
Tribunal found that the Revenue was aware that the respondent was taking the merged credit in 2004, in view of intimation dtd.19/01/2005. Thus, the Tribunal held that the show-cause notice is time barred and allowed the respondent's appeal before it.
This decision of the Tribunal is one on facts and nothing has been shown to us to indicate that the same is perverse. - substantial question of law. - appeal dismissed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1360
Refund alongwith interest - pendency of SLP before Supreme Court - condonation of delay in filing appeal - Time limitation - HELD THAT:- The issue with regard to the entitlement of the claim of interest on refund under section 54(1)(aa) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 came to be set at rest by this Court in June, 2018. However, the SLP came to be preferred in April, 2019. We are informed that the Supreme Court has condoned the delay and the SLP has now been ordered to be posted for hearing.
For the present, we adjourn this matter to 03/07/2019. However, if there is no further development in the Supreme Court, then we may consider to direct the respondents - State to deposit the requisite amount either with the tribunal or with the registry of this Court.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1359
Requirement of pre-deposit to entertain the revision petition - Section 82(2A) of the AVAT Act, 2003 - HELD THAT:- Upon reading of Section 82(2A) of AVAT Act, 2003, it is discernible that the first paragraph of Section 82(2A) of AVAT Act, 2003 provides that the Commissioner shall not entertain an application for revision without 25% of the demanded amount being deposited. But at the same time the second paragraph containing a proviso, provides that in the event an application is made, the Commissioner may for reasons to be recorded in writing and subject to furnishing of such security as may be deemed fit, admit an application either with part payment or without any payment of the disputed amount of the tax including the penalty.
The requirement of giving a reason for granting or not granting the exemption is also an indication that any such application made under the provision of the second paragraph of Section 82(2A) would necessarily have to be entertained and considered, as otherwise the requirement of giving a reason cannot be complied with.
In the present case, as the records reveals that the petitioner had filed an application for exempting the payment of the 25% of the demanded amount, the Court is of the view that it is incumbent upon the Commissioner to give a consideration to the said application and pass a reasoned order thereon as deemed appropriate under the law and in the facts and circumstance of the case - petition allowed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1358
Maintainability of Advance Ruling application - Scope of Advance ruling - Classification of imported goods - Threaded metal nuts which function same as standard nut - Plastic rivets not only being capable of being used in the fitment of trims on the body of a motor vehicle but in other industries for similar functionality - Quick Adapter not only capable of being used to connect pipes and tubes in the interior of a motor vehicle, but also for similar functionality in other industries - Plastic pipe clips - Brackets and Channels - Non-Return Valve - Metal U Clips - Fasteners and Spoilers - Bracket - Whether the Subject Product merits classification under Tariff item 7220 20 90 despite being capable of being classified under Chapter 87 of the First Schedule, and not under Tariff item 8708 99 00?
Scope of Advance ruling - whether or not the activities undertaken by the applicant pertains to matters or questions specified in Section 97(2)? - HELD THAT:- The applicant has raised questions for classification of their inputs imported from out of India and which are used by them in the manufacturing process to produce products which are then supplied to the market. We find primarily that, as per provision of section 95 of CGST ACT, this authority can give a ruling to the applicant on matters or questions raised, in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant.
Supply of goods or not - Section 7 of the GST Act - Scope of supply - HELD THAT:- From a reading of the said section it is very apparent that, import of services are alone considered as a ‘supply’, not import of goods. Further we find that Section 5 of the IGST Act, the integrated tax on goods imported into India shall be levied and collected in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the CTA, 1975 on the value as determined under the said act at the point when duties of Customs are levied on the said goods under Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Since the subject proposed transaction is itself not a ‘supply’ under the GST Act, in view of the provisions of Section 95 read with Section 97 of the GST Act, the issue is not within the purview of this authority.
This authority is not allowed to answer the question on classification of imported goods since the same is out of the purview of Sec. 95 of CGST Act.
Application rejected as not maintainable.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1357
Levy of GST - Supply of extra packs of Cigarettes without recovering any additional cost from the Distributors - Promotional scheme for distributors - taxable value attributed to such extra packs of Cigarettes for of GST - exempt supplies or free samples - Section 17 (2) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 42 of the CGST Rules, 2017 or clause (h) of Section 17 (5) of the CGST Act, 2017.
HELD THAT:- Appellant are contemplating a promotion scheme for the clients/distributors wherein they intend to supply additional packs of cigarettes along with regular supply of cigarettes of a particular quantity, without receiving any additional consideration for the additional packs.
Applicability of Circular No. 92/11/2019-GST dated 07.03.2019 issued vide F. No. 20/16/04/2018-GST - HELD THAT:- The Circular is clearly applicable to the facts of the subject application. From a reading of the above Circular and the facts of the matter i.e. the facts of the promotion scheme proposed by the applicant we find that their scheme of Buy 100 Get 10 free OR Buy 1000 Get 150 free” is clearly covered by Para B of the said Circular. Hence in such cases it will not be an individual supply of free goods but a case of two or more individual supplies where a single price is being charged for the entire supply. It can at best be treated as supplying two goods for the price of one. In the case of Buy 100 Get 10 free it will be 2 individual supplies, each of 100 packs and 10 packs for the price of 100 packs. In such a case taxability of such supply will be dependent upon as to whether the supply is a composite supply or a mixed supply and the rate of tax shall be determined as per the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act - Further, ITC shall also be available to the supplier for the inputs, input services and capital goods used in relation to supply of goods or services or both as part of such offers.
The situation mentioned at Para(C) of the Circular mentions situations whether value discounts are envisaged and therefore will not be applicable in the subject case where value discounts are not contemplated - The situation mentioned at Para(D) of the Circular mentions situations where discounts are not known at the time of supply or where discounts are offered after the supply is over. In the subject case the discounts are known well before the supply is effected.
Thus the extra packs of Cigarettes will not be leviable to GST - The extra packs of cigarettes will not be considered as exempt supplies or free samples and hence the provisions Of 17(2) read with Rule 42 of the CGST Rules, 2017 or clause (h) of Section 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 will not be applicable.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1356
Permission to withdrawal of petition - Refund of IGST paid - duty drawback - inadvertent error - HELD THAT:- The learned counsel appearing in support of the petitioner seeks to withdraw the Petition with a liberty to approach the respondent under the proviso to section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. We, however, make it clear that the issue of application of proviso to section 149 to the facts of this case would be considered in accordance with the law by the authority to whom the application for rectification is made.
Petition is disposed of as withdrawn.
............
|
9911796707
