|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 1589 Records
-
2022 (7) TMI 1230
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - extension of condonable period - Validity of SCN and order cancelling the petitioners’ registration - case is that Order-in-Appeal passed by respondent no.1 is founded on the ground that the appeal was instituted beyond the prescribed period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Concededly, the period of limitation prescribed for filing the appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 is three months, which is amenable to extension by the period of one month by the Commissioner on sufficient cause being shown - The prescribed period of limitation would thus, end on 24.02.2020, with a one-month leeway available to the Commissioner to extend the period of limitation. The condonable period of one month, in this instance, would end on 24.03.2020.
The extension of limitation applied even to the condonable period, and not just to the prescribed period of limitation under Section 107 of the Act - Even a plain reading of the provision does not suggest that the orders need not be signed. At the least, the respondents/revenue should have appended digital signatures on the SCN and the above-mentioned order, as it has grave implications for the assessee.
The appeal preferred by the petitioners is restored - Petition disposed off.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1229
Cancellation of registration of petitioner - registration was obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts or not - signature not verified - unsigned document - HELD THAT:- When it is observed that both documents indicate non-application of mind, Ms. Vyas states that the officer whose name appears, Kalpana Anil Patil is present in court and she has been informed that these were system generated documents. Ms. Vyas states that even Commissioner had personally informed her that these are system generated documents and the Commissioner has accelerated the problem to the central authority in Delhi.
In fact, it would have been expected from respondents to show what the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works Vs. State of Gujarat and ors. [2022 (4) TMI 864 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], had directed that the department shall issue notices and pass order in physical form containing all the necessary information and particulars. This judgment of Gujarat High Court has been delivered on 24th February, 2022. Still respondents including GST Network (GSTN) have not set their house in order.
The impugned order is set aside - the respondents shall restore petitioner’s registration forthwith, in any case before 4.30 p.m. today - petition disposed off.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1228
Time Limitation - Tenability of the blocking order which was triggered by the respondents/revenue via the impugned communication - HELD THAT:- The blocking order does not comply with the jurisdictional prerequisites which are embedded in Section 83 of the 2017 Act.
The argument advanced by Mr Prakash that the period provided in Section 83 of the Act i.e., one year, will expire only on 01.08.2022 is also flawed, for the reasons given:-
(i) Firstly, the impugned communication is not issued under Section 83 of the 2017 Act.
(ii) Secondly, there are, concededly, no proceedings pending against the petitioner under the provisions referred under Section 83 of the 2017 Act, as it stood at the relevant point in time (i.e., Sections 62, 63, 64, 67, 73 74 of the 2017 Act.)
(iii) Thirdly, the order passed by the Supreme Court in IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION [2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER], will not extend the time frame provided under Section 83 of the 2017 Act.
(iv) Lastly, Mr Prakash seeks to place reliance on, the timeframe provided therein, which is, one year, would have perhaps expired in the first week of June 2022. As indicated above, this part need not detain us, as the impugned communication and action is otherwise unsustainable in law.
The impugned communication is, thus, quashed - the writ petition is disposed off.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1227
Difficulty in obtaining GST registration - discrepancy in PAN - Seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to complete the PAN based GST registration of petitioner-Trust by showing the continuation of business as Trust - rectification in the PAN card - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the GST registration of the petitioner-Trust has not been successful because of the defect in the PAN Card issued to the petitioner. The method of rectifying the same is by approaching PAN Facilitation Centre or by filing an online application in Income Tax Department Portal and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to complete the PAN based GST registration as prayed by the petitioner cannot be considered.
The writ petition is hereby dismissed reserving the liberty to the petitioner to seek rectification of its PAN card.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1226
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - non-filing of statutory returns under the provisions of the respective GST Acts - HELD THAT:- The issue has been decided in the case of [2022 (2) TMI 933 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where it was held that The petitioners are directed to file their returns for the period prior to the cancellation of registration, if such returns have not been already filed, together with tax defaulted which has not been paid prior to cancellation along with interest for such belated payment of tax and fine and fee fixed for belated filing of returns for the defaulted period under the provisions of the Act, within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if it has not been already paid.
The writ petition is disposed off.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1225
Seeking to direct the respondent not to harass the petitioners during enquiry - adoption of 3rd degree method or not - fake GST claims - HELD THAT:- It is seen that the respondent finding materials regarding fake GST claims, had summoned the 2nd petitioner for enquiry in accordance with Section 70 of the GST Act, 2017. In such circumstances, the 2nd petitioner is bound to appear for enquiry. The enquiry shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures. The 2nd petitioner shall be permitted to be assisted by her Accountant of necessary. The respondent shall not harass.
The Criminal Original Petition stands disposed off.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1224
Seizure of goods alongwith the vehicle - case is that the goods were not accompanying with proper document as prescribed under the Act - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, air conditioners were coming from Delhi to Ghaziabad and were intercepted by the Mobile Squad, Noida. On that basis, 9 air conditioners were seized and security, along with equal amount of penalty, amounting to Rs. 1,14,124/- was demanded, which was confirmed upto the appellate authority. The only discrepancy pointed out by the seizing authority and the appellate authority is that U.P. e-way bill was not accompanying the goods. Both the authorities lost sight of the fact that during the period from 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018, requirement of U.P. e-way bill was not applicable to the transactions of the petitioner and therefore, the seizure, demand of security and penalty cannot be justified.
The Division Bench of this Court in M/S GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD., L.G. ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED, M/S GUALA CLOSURES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., M/S. RAS POLYTEX PVT. LIMITED, RIMJHIM ISPAT LIMITED, RIMJHIM ISPAT LIMITED, M/S. GAURANG PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., M/S. ADITYA BIRLA FASHION AND RETAIL LTD., M/S. NAVYUG AIRCONDITIONING AND M/S. PROACTIVE PLAST PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND 02 OTHERS AND STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS [2018 (9) TMI 1261 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has held that the goods were not required to accompany with UP e-way bill during the period from 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018. The air conditioners, which were detained by the respondents on 26.03.2018, and thereafter, levy of security and penalty, cannot be justified.
The writ petition is allowed with a cost of Rs. 1,000/-, which shall be deposited within a month from today.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1223
Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) - violation of notice issued - HELD THAT:- In the assessment order the assessing officer has nowhere mentioned/ initiated penalty under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of any such notice. The assessing officer for the first time in the show cause notice under section 274 rws 271(1)(b) has made the reference of notice dated 08.12.2018. In fact no such notice dated 08.12.2018 was ever issued by the assessing officer.
The assessing officer while issuing show cause notice as well as penalty passing penalty order has not verified the fact properly and levied the penalty in a mechanical way. Hence, the penalty levied by assessing officer of Rs. 10,000/- is deleted. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1222
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - As argued AO has not specified specific limb in the show cause notice - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee has not raised any specific ground of appeal on the merits of the penalty. The assessee has raised limited ground of appeal that the assessing officer has not specified specific limb in the show cause notice. No evidence regarding such plea is placed on record despite the facts that this appeal is pending from 2019.
Neither the assessee has filed any evidence, nor came forward to explain the fact in his favour. Thus, in absence of any such supporting evidence we have no other option except to uphold the order of ld CIT(A) is sustain the order of penalty. In the result, the sole ground of appeal raised by these is dismissed.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1221
Deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e) - assessee purchase of adjacent old residential house in her own name but the payment was made through the bank account of the Company - AO noted that assessee did not furnish any proof to support the claim that they had tried to get property converted for commercial use - contention of the assessee that the company had agreed to buy the adjacent old residential house for the purpose of the expansion of its hospital and for which an advance payment was made to the vendor - HELD THAT:- The property that has been purchased is also reflected in the books of account of the hospital. Before us, Revenue has not placed any material on record to demonstrate that the impugned transaction was a smoke screen to cover a benefit obtained by the assessee from the company in which the assessee is a shareholder. Further, Revenue has also not placed any contrary material on record to the controvert the submissions of the Ld AR. In such a situation and in the light of the judicial decisions cited herein above, we are of the view that the amount advanced to the assessee was not a gratuitous loan but the transaction was entered to protect the advance money of Rs. 90 lacs from being forfeited and that the business expediency for entering the transaction has been proved by the assessee.
As in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra [2011 (8) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] has held that if loan or advance is given to a shareholder as a consequence of any further consideration which is beneficial to the company, in such a case such loan or advance cannot be said to be deemed dividend within the meaning of the Act. It has further held that gratuitous loan or advance given by a company to those classes of shareholders would come within the purview of Section 2(22) but not cases where the loan or advance is given in return to an advantage conferred upon the company by such shareholder.
We are of the view that the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the addition made by AO by invoking the provisions of s. 2(22)(e) - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1220
Disallowance of interest expenses claimed u/s.57 - entitlement of the assessee towards deduction of interest paid on borrowed funds u/s.57(iii) - nexus between the interest bearing funds raised by the assessee and the interest bearing amounts given - HELD THAT:- Dynasty Tradelink Pvt. Ltd - As interest bearing amounts raised by the assessee from M/s. Dynasty Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. had been wholly and exclusively advanced on interest to GDR Educational Society, therefore, the interest expenditure so incurred on the interest bearing funds was rightly claimed by the assessee as a deduction u/s. 57(iii) of the Act. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978 (10) TMI 133 - SUPREME COURT] - Thus taking cognizance of the fact that an inextricable nexus between the interest bearing funds raised by the assessee from M/s Dynasty Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. and the interest bearing amounts given to GDR Educational Society is proved to the hilt, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and vacate the disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction under Sec. 57(iii) of the interest paid to M/s Dynasty Tradelink Pvt. Ltd.
Rajni Rungta - As we find substance in the claim of the AR as regards the allowability of the assessee’s claim for deduction of the interest expenditure on the old loan of Smt. Rajani Rungta which was advanced as an interest bearing loan/advance for earning of interest income. Our aforesaid conviction is supported by the fact that the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest paid on the loan raised from the aforesaid person, viz. Smt. Rajani Rungta, as was raised by him in his return of income for the immediately preceding year, i.e AY 2012-13, had not been dislodged by the department.
Nothing to the contrary has been brought to our notice by the ld. DR to rebut the aforesaid factual position as had been canvassed by the ld. AR before us.
As the fact situation qua the issue in hand during the year under consideration remains the same as was there in the immediately preceding year, therefore, going by the principle of consistency we find no reason to take a different view, and thus, allow the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest on the aforesaid loan - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1219
Levy of income tax - assessee has opted for the taxation under the concessional scheme of taxation under section 115BAA - manner in which the provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxations and Amendments of Certain Provisions) Act 2020, are required to be interpreted and whether dehors the statutory linkage between the time permissible for furnishing of return under section 139(1) and filing the intimation of exercising the option for the concessional regime of taxation under section 115BAA(5) - HELD THAT:- When the economic activities worldwide were seriously disrupted on account of the Covid pandemic, if more relaxations were required to be given, in the wisdom of the legislature, in respect of filing documents other than income tax returns, such statutory relaxations could not be declined on the ground that this differentiation is alien to the scheme of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The general scheme of timeframe prescribed under the Income Tax Act 1961 has to make way for the specific relaxation provisions under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxations and Amendments of Certain Provisions) Act 2020. The time permitted for filing of form 10-IC, by virtue of section 3(1)(b) of TOLA, must be treated as 31st March 2021, even as the time permitted for filing of the income tax return under section, in the light of third proviso to Section 3(1) and read with subsequent notification, was only upto 15th February 2021. The plea of the assessee thus is indeed correct.
The short question before us relates to the interpretation of provisions with respect to relaxations to mitigate the hardships caused during the Covid pandemic period, by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxations and Amendments of Certain Provisions) Act 2020, and it is our considered view that such relaxation provisions must be interpreted in a liberal and non-pedantic manner, and so as to give full effect to the relaxations permitted by the legislature. Viewed thus also, the proposition canvassed by the assessee is a reasonably possible view of the matter, and it merits acceptance. In view of all these discussions, and bearing in mind the entirety of the case, we uphold the plea of the assessee, and direct the Assessing Officer to accept the exercise of the option by the assessee for the concessional taxation regime under section 115 BAA. The assessee must therefore get the relief, as admissible, on the application of the scheme of taxation under section 115BAA.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1218
Addition u/s 68 on accommodation entries receipt - addition in the hands of this assessee on protective basis - HELD THAT:- In this case, the assessee is found to be a conduit company providing accommodation entries to various parties. Names of entry operators are also mentioned in the assessment order and the statements are also recorded wherein they have categorically stated that all these entries are accommodation entries. During the year, this company invested in five different companies as share capital - AO made an addition of the accommodation entry amount as well as the concerned commission in the hands of the assessee on productive basis - CIT (A) deleted the addition on protective basis for the reason that on substantive basis these incomes have been taxed in the hands of all the beneficiaries. Naturally when the substantive addition is confirmed by the appellate authorities, we do not find any reason to dislodge the finding of the learned CIT (A) in deleting the addition in the hands of this assessee on protective basis.
Commission income at the rate of 2.5% of the accommodation entry - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- We do not find any reason to not to reverse the finding of the learned CIT (A) in deleting the commission income at the rate of 2.5% of the accommodation entry. Assessee is undisputedly an accommodation entry provider and therefore, the commission income requires to be added in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, ground no. 3 of the appeal is allowed.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1217
Deduction u/s 10 AA - interest income earned from SEZ Unit - HELD THAT:- We find that in the present case the assessee is a company, which is eligible for deduction u/s 10 AA of the income tax act. It also received certain interest income on which the deduction was claimed u/s 10 AA - This issue is already decided by the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case for earlier years, the learned and CIT- A followed the same and allowed the claim of the assessee. In view of this we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT – A in holding that assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 10 AA of the income tax act so far as the interest income is concerned. Accordingly, ground number 1 – 4 of the appeal is dismissed.
Late payment of the employee’s contribution to fund - HELD THAT:- It is undisputed that both the above contribution has been deposited before the due date of filing of the return of income. CIT – A deleted the disallowance following decision of the honourable jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT versus Ghatge patil transport private limited [2014 (10) TMI 402 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and CIT versus Hindustan organic chemicals Ltd [2014 (7) TMI 477 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] As the learned CIT – A has deleted the disallowance following the decision of the honourable jurisdictional High Court and no contrary decision is pointed out by the learned departmental representative, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT – A in deleting the above disallowance . Accordingly, ground numbers 5 – 6 of the appeal are dismissed.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1216
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Receipt of money in addition to the sale consideration disclosed in the sale deed - HELD THAT:- In the case of CIT Vs. Fortune Hotels and Estates Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (10) TMI 783 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], it has been help that where in respect of sale of a property, matter was referred to DVO who determined sale consideration at a higher amount, that by itself would not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income so as to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of addition made u/s 50C. Further, in the case of Harish Voovaya Shetty [2014 (7) TMI 1032 - ITAT MUMBAI] it has been held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed in respect of the addition made by applying Section 50C when there was no material on record to show that the assessee had received more amount than that shown by it on sale of property.
In the present case, AO in the absence of any evidence regarding receipt of money in addition to the sale consdiertion disclosed in the sale deed and even without there being any allegation to that effect, the A.O based on the fiction created u/s 43CA of the Act, the addition has been made which cannot be sustained under law. By following the settled principal of law mentioned above, we are of the opinion that, CIT(A) has justified in deleting the penalty imposed by the Ld. A.O. Therefore, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) requires no interference. Accordingly, we dismiss the Revenue’s Grounds of Appeal.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1215
Exemption u/s 11 - amount spent outside India on account of boarding and lodging local transport etc. - HELD THAT:- In the case of India Brand Equity Foundation [2012 (7) TMI 799 - ITAT DELHI] it was held that amount spent outside India for participating in a fare held outside India cannot be treated as application of income of trust for purpose of section 11(1 )(a) - as observed that if the income of die trust can be applied even outside India so long as the charitable purposes are in India, then there is no need for die trust which tends to promote international welfare in which India is interested and which was created after 04/01/1952 to apply to the CBDT for a general or special order directing dial the income to the extent to which it is applied to die promotion of international welfare outside India shall not be denied die exemption nor would it be necessary for a charitable or religious trust created before die aforesaid date to seek such a order from CBDT in respect of its income which is applied to charitable or religious purposes outside India. It was further held that the words "in India" appearing in section ll(l)(a) and the words "outside India" appearing in section 11(l)(c) qualified the word "applied" appearing in these provisions and not the words "said purposes."
Thus, it is well settled law that the expenditure incurred by the trust outside India cannot be considered as application of income as per Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore in the present case, the disallowance of Rs. 10,15,818/- which was spent outside India on account of boarding and lodging local transport etc. cannot be considered as application income as per Section 11(1)(a) of the Act.
Assessee has not even produced any iota of evidence/materials before the AO/CIT(A) or before us to suggest that the assessee has received foreign contribution as per law to meet the expenditure incurred by the assessee for boarding and lodging, local transport etc. outside India. Therefore we are not in a position to uphold the theory of reimbursement taken by the Assessee.
Thus Order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is just and proper, which requires no interference, accordingly we dismiss the Grounds No. 1 to 3 of the assessee.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1214
Deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) - whether the Assessee can be said to be a co-operative Bank? - HELD THAT:- Deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act cannot be denied to the Assessee. The latest verdict by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2021 (1) TMI 488 - SUPREME COURT] held that section 80P being a benevolent provision must be read liberally and reasonably and in case of any ambiguity it must be interpreted in favour of the assessee. Supreme Court observed that section 80P(2)(a)(i) which covers a co-operative society engaged in the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members does not require that the assessee has to be a primary agricultural credit society.
Section 80P(2)(a)(i) does not require that the society has to give agricultural credit only. It further observed that once the co-operative society provides credit facility to its members, the fact that it also provides credit facility to non-members does not disentitle the society from availing of deduction. Supreme Court observed that the object of section 80P(4) was to exclude co-operative banks that function at par with other commercial banks and noted that as primary agricultural credit societies are not entitled for obtaining a banking license would not be hit by this provision. In the light of the law on the issue discussed above Assessee is entitled to deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act as claimed and the same is directed to be allowed.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1213
Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - notice beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of the reasons, it is evident that the ld. AO had not applied the proviso to Section 147 of the Act by indicating in the reasons as to whether there was any failure on the part of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of facts that are material for the purpose of assessment. Hence, the reopening proceedings deserve to be quashed on this count also.
Thus the re-assessment proceedings are hereby quashed. Since the re-assessment proceedings are quashed on legal ground, the other grounds raised by the assessee on merits need not be adjudicated.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1212
Intimation issued u/s 143(1) and the rectification order passed u/s 154 - Non grant foreign tax credit u/s. 90 / 90A - HELD THAT:- We are not in agreement with the order of the NFAC, Delhi in the instant case as admittedly the assessee has claimed foreign tax credit in accordance with provisions of Section 90 / 90A of the Act. The credit for the same was denied to the assessee in the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act without any reason.
CIT(A) atleast ought to have looked into the same and decide the issue which was not done in the instant case. Ultimately, we find that this is a matter requiring factual verification and accordingly, we deem it fit and appropriate to set aside this issue to the file of the ld. AO to grant foreign tax credit after due verification in accordance with law. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1211
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - remuneration paid to its working partners - such partners of the assessee firm is engaged in full time teaching profession, remuneration paid to her by the assessee firm is not allowable u/s 40A(2)(a) and as seen that the AO omitted to disallow the same in the assessment order and no enquiries were made in this regard during the assessment proceedings - HELD THAT:- As main contention of the assessee is that Smt.Dadi Anuradha is a teacher. After school working hours, she used to attend office for an administration work and verification of loan applications etc and is paid reasonable remuneration of Rs.3,80,000/- only and there is no bar under the law that the working partner should be full time working partner. Therefore, she is working as a part time / temporary teacher in the said school. Considering all, there is also possibility to attend the work during holidays and after school hours. Therefore, we are of the view that initiation of proceedings u/s 263 is not valid on this count. Hence, we set aside the order passed by the Ld.Pr.CIT u/s 263 and allow the grounds raised by the assessee.
............
|
9911796707
