|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 1739 Records
-
2017 (8) TMI 1362
Filing Wealth Tax Returns not filed his WT Returns within the due date - levy of interest u/s.17B - Held that:- In respect of the AYs 2007-08 & 2008-09, the filing of the return of wealth is mandatory duty on the assessee once the net wealth exceeds the prescribed limit. Just because, the due date for filing of the Wealth Tax Returns expire and the assessee had not filed his return within the due date, it cannot be said that the assessee is exempted from the levy of interest u/s.17B in respect of the period between the due date and the date of the notice u/s.17. The levy of interest u/s.17B is admittedly compensatory in nature. In these circumstances, respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Smt.M.R. Prabhavathy v. ACIT [2002 (1) TMI 8 - KARNATAKA High Court] the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue stands reversed and that of the AO restored.
In respect of the AYs 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12, it is noticed that the assessee has filed his return of income within the due date. The Revenue has not been able to dispute this fact. Even considering the submission of the Ld.DR that the return was not before the AO, the same would not stand, in so far as, that is not the ground raised by the Revenue.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1360
Whether the exception carved out by the proviso to Section 24 would apply only if the allegation of corruption or human rights violations were with regard to the Intelligence Bureau itself or pertaining to an Officer of the Intelligence Bureau?
Held that: - Section 24 (1) inter alia make the Act inapplicable to intelligence and security organizations, established by the Central Government, specified in the Second Schedule and further excludes any information furnished by such organisations to the Central Government from being liable to be disclosed. However, an exception is carved out to the exclusion clause with respect to information covered by the proviso. The proviso stipulates that if the information pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violations, it shall not be excluded under this sub-section.
The plain reading of the proviso shows that the exclusion is applicable with regard to any information. The term "any information" would include within its ambit all kinds of information. The proviso becomes applicable if the information pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. The proviso is not qualified and conditional on the information being related to the exempt intelligence and security organizations. If the information sought, furnished by the exempt intelligence and security organizations, pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violation, it would be exempt from the exclusion clause.
If the information sought pertains to allegation of corruption and human right violation, it would be exempt from the exclusion clause, irrespective of the fact that the information pertains to the exempt intelligence and security organizations or not or pertains to an Officer of the Intelligence Bureau or not.
Clearly, the information sought by the respondent falls in the category of being exempt from the exclusion clause and is liable to be supplied.
Petition dismissed.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1359
Revision u/s 263 - whether direction of the Ld.CIT is beyond the scope of the provision of section 153A - Held that:- Whereas, the opening capital balance was taken at ₹ 13,952/- as on 01.04.2005 and there was a difference and hence, the Ld. CIT has directed the assessing officer to reexamine the issue and make the enquiries and complete the assessment.
During the appeal, AR referred the paper book page No.30 which is the closing balance as on 31.03.2005. As per the balance sheet, the capital balance as on 31.03.2005 was ₹ 7,76,810/-. The assessee also enclosed the account copy of the assessee in respect of the capital account which shows the opening balance of ₹ 776810/- as on 01.04,2005 and there was no difference. Therefore, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT has committed an error while examing the capital accounts.
DR did not controvert the above facts furnished by the Ld.AR and we do not find any difference as observed by the Ld.CIT in his order passed u/s 263. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT and allow the appeal of the assessee.
Revision u/s 263 in respect of expenditure under the head repairs and maintenance - Held that:- It is not permissible to revise the assessment order in the case of search assessments without referring to the incriminating material in the case of completed assessments. In the instant case the assessments were unabated and there is no incrimainating material. Hence we set aside the orders of the Ld.CIT and allow the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y.2006-07 and 2007-08.
Admission of additional income during the post search investigation which was not declared in the return of income filed subsequent to search - CIT set aside the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A with a direction to reexamine the issue - Held that:- As per the statement recorded u/s 131 on 19.03.2010 the assessee has admitted the total income of ₹ 35 lakhs for the assessment year 2010-11 but no admission was given for additional income and accordingly filed the Return of Income. No other incriminating material was placed before us by the Ld.DR evidencing any other additional income. Therefore, there is no error which is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for taking up the case for revision u/s 263, and accordingly, we set aside the order passed u/s 263 and allow the appeal of the assessee.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1358
Non-compliance with the procedural rules - Held that:- It is unfortunate that the officials of the Revenue and in charge of filing such Appeals merely hand over the papers to their Advocates and thereafter, refuse to follow up the case. It is convenient for them to thereafter blame the Advocate and upon lapse of more than two and half years.
This is what has happened in the instant case and we do not think that paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-support, which purports to inform the Court that it is only when another Appeal for the assessment year 2005-2006 came up on board on 8th June, 2017, that the Advocate, who had filed the instant/present Appeal, informed the Revenue of the conditional order, can be termed as a sufficient cause. That cause which is bonafide, truthful and reasonable alone can be accepted. This explanation or reason fails to inspire the confidence of this Court.
Revenue officials were aware that in subsequent years, the same issue was dealt with by the Tribunal and it was answered against them. The Tribunal follows it's order of prior assessment years and if the issue is identical applies to its subsequent or successive Assessment Years. When an Appeal is brought challenging the Tribunal's order for the subsequent Assessment Year, then, on the date of its presentation, the Revenue officials were aware that it had filed an Appeal for the prior Assessment Year and interest of justice demands that both are tagged and heard together. The same Advocate has been instructed to file both Appeals. Thus, the version is not reliable at all.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1357
Condonation of delay - reasons for delay for not filing appeal - Held that:- This is no explanation for the delay of 1371 days and if for all these years the Revenue officials have not noticed the lodging, filing or pendency of an appeal, a conditional order of the Registry, then, it must set its own house in order by sacking and removing the delinquent and negligent officials or penalising them otherwise so as to subserve larger public interest.
If they are found to be hand-in-glove with the assessee and adopt such tactics deliberately, then, we do not think that the Court is responsible for the same. The Registrar (O.S.) has been drawing up a list and notifying the appeals regularly and intimating the parties and their Advocates through the High Court website that they must attend to these cases or else all consequences including dismissal without adjudication on merit, will follow. If this is a known fact to all practising Advocates, including the Revenue's Advocates, then, we do not think that any special treatment can be claimed.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1356
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - ITAT deleting the penalty - Held that:- The Court is of the view that the decision of the ITAT was a plausible one in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court is unable to agree with the Revenue that there is a deliberate concealment by the Assessee warranting the levy of penalty. No substantial question of law arises
-
2017 (8) TMI 1355
Addition on account of Arm's Length Price - comparable selection - Held that:- Itochu Corporation, Japan ("ICJ") is a trading organization in Japan and is engaged in trading of various products such as textiles, machinery, information and communications related products, meals, products related to oil and other energy resources, general merchandise, chemicals, provisions and food.
IIPL was incorporated as a wholly owned subsidiary of ICJ to render business support services to its AEs in the nature of facilitation services to source goods from India. The TPO failed to appreciate that the Assessee has not undertaken the activity of purchase and resale. Further, the companies adopted by the TPO as comparable are undertaking trading operations which is not comparable to the inter-company transactions undertaken by the Assessee. The TPO has artificially enhanced the cost base on the Assessee and proposed a mark-up on the FOB value of goods sourced by AEs, such approach does not correspond to any one of the five methods, as provided under the ACT.
Assessee has earned a net operating profit margin on cost of 110.91% and 123.52% for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09, respectively. Computation of an adjustment (over and above the existing remuneration) to the tune of INR 6,53,22,520 and INR 9,69,43,894 by the TPO for the relevant AYs, has required the Assessee to earn an NCP of 202.35% and 246.09% for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09, respectively is practically impossible to achieve. These contentions taken by the Ld. AR are accepted. The Revenues appeal agitating the issue of deletion of the addition made on account of Arms Length Price related to FOB value of cost is similar to the case of GAP International Sources India Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (9) TMI 766 - ITAT DELHI] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1354
TDS u/s 194C - Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - non deduction of payment to the sub contractors - scope of amendment made by the Finance Act 2010 - Held that:- The respondent assessee did not violate the unamended section 40(a)(ia) of the act. We have noted the ambiguity and referred their contention of Revenue and rejected the interpretation placed by them. The amended provisions are clear and free from any ambiguity and doubt. They will help curtail litigation. The amended provision clearly support view taken in paragraphs 17- 20 that the expression "said due date" used in clause A of proviso to unamended section refers to time specified in Section 139(1) of the Act. The amended section 40(a)(ia) expands and further liberalises the statue when it stipulates that deductions made in the first eleven months of the previous year but paid before the due date of filing of the return, will constitute sufficient compliance.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1353
CENVAT credit - input services utilized by the appellants for their output services of Information Technology software enabled services viz., ‘e-publishing of books’ which were being exported - Held that: - issue stand settled by the Tribunal in the appellant’s own case [2017 (8) TMI 1053 - CESTAT CHENNAI], where it has been held that they are entitled to the credit of service tax paid on the said services and consequently refund of the same in terms of the provisions of Rule 5 of CCR 2004 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1352
CENVAT credit - canteen services under the head of ‘Outdoor Catering’ Services - Held that: - the onus of establishing the fact that the appellant are entitled to CENVAT credit is on them - Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE, Nagpur Versus Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has clearly held that the appellant are not entitled to ‘Outdoor Catering Services’, unless they pay for it - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1351
Allowable business expenditure - vend fee, special privilege fee and the annual license fee - Held that:- As the issue of fees levied by the government has already been held to be an allowable expenditure, respectfully following the principles laid down in the decision in the case of Karnataka Beverages Corporation Ltd. [2016 (3) TMI 461 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], the additions made by the AO and as confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) in respect of the vend fee, special privilege fee and the annual license fee stands deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2017 (8) TMI 1350
Valuation - imported Polyester Quilt Cover - The department is of the view that fabric used for the quilt cover is nothing but a double bed sheet. So, enhanced duty was demanded - Held that: - Textile Committee has submitted a report on 25.08.2014 wherein it is mentioned that the item in question is 100% polyester woven printed quilt Cover under H.S. 6302.22 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1349
The High Court of Bombay allowed the withdrawal of the appeals by the Appellant with liberty to file Miscellaneous Applications before the Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Appeals were disposed of as withdrawn with liberty granted. All contentions of the Appellants are kept open for consideration in the Miscellaneous Application.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1348
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Company petition maintainability - eligibility to file a petition under IBC, 2016 - Held that:- Since the petitioner Company already suffered Liquidation order passed by the Hon'ble High court which is still subsisting, the present petition is also not maintainable under section 11(d) of IBC, 2016, as extracted above. Apart from that, as stated supra, the Financial Creditors/Banks of company have already initiated several steps to recover their dues as explained by the Bank in their Affidavits. The filing of present Company Petition is nothing but gross abuse of process of law enacted by the IBC, 2016. The entire act has to be read together to come to a conclusion with regard to admission of a case under IBC is concerned, and it cannot be simply based on technical reading of the concerned provisions of IBC. Hence, it is not a fit case for admission, and is liable only to be dismissed with costs
-
2017 (8) TMI 1347
Disallowance of purchases u/s 69C - Held that:- Since the assessee has satisfactorily explained that entries found in the seized documents are reflected in the regular books of account, therefore, the assessee succeeds on this preliminary issue. Thus, we refrain ourselves from adjudicating the other grounds by the assessee as well as the revenue on merit. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1346
Reopening of assessment - Held that:- Assessing Officer had no tangible material to justify his “reason to believe” that income has escaped assessment. The reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer u/s.147 are without jurisdiction and hence, are not sustainable. See case of Sandvik Information Technology AB (a group of Company of assessee [2016 (12) TMI 1663 - ITAT PUNE]
Whether IT support services is royalty or FTS - Held that:- This issue has been decided by the Pune Bench of ITAT in assessee’s own case [2013 (4) TMI 643 - ITAT Pune] we allow the claim of assessee that IT support services is neither royalty or fees for Technical Services (FTS), Thus, the issue is allowed on merits. Thus, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed
-
2017 (8) TMI 1345
Maintainability of appeal - monetary limit - tax effect of the case - Held that:- Prima-facie this appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 in F. No.279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ (Pt) dated 10th December 2015, vide which it has been provided that if the tax effect by virtue of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)’s order is below ₹ 10 lacs, then that order would not be challenged before the Tribunal in further appeal. The Board has provided exemptions at clause (8) of the Instructions wherein it has been provided that these instructions will not be applicable, if vires of any provisions has been quashed by impugned order or addition was made on some audit objections or the addition relates to undisclosed foreign assets/bank accounts, etc. We find that the present case does not fall within the exemption clause and the tax is less than ₹ 10 lacs. Therefore, the present appeal is not maintainable and hence dismissed.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1344
Denying the registration u/s 10(23C)(vi) - excess accumulation of funds - Held that:- From the details of four assessment years i.e. of 2012-13, 2013,14, 2014-15 & 2015-16, that the amount of receipt has been exceeded more than 1 Crore, therefore, the assessee preferred the registration u/s 10(23C)(iv) and in the previous year as it reflects from the balance sheet, the assessee utilized the amount for the purchase of land for further extension of the School Building etc. that certainly goes to prove that the same is being utilized for the educational purposes only because the Ld. CIT(E) failed to bring on record any contrary material to the fact.
The assessee is also covered within the provisions of Sec.10(23C)(vi) for grant of registration because in the Act, the institution has not been categorized and it has to be given a general meaning as specified in the dictionary. Excess accumulation in the instant case has certainly applied for the objects of the society itself, therefore, we do not find any hesitation to allow the registration to the assessee society U/s 10 (23C)(vi) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1343
Commercial or Industrial Construction Services - period involved is prior to 1.6.2007 - also, appellant availed credit on inputs before making payment in regard to the invoices issued - Held that: - the issue with regard to service tax on Commercial or Industrial Construction Services is prior to 1.6.2007 and stands covered in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] - the demand in respect of Commercial or Industrial Construction Services is unsustainable.
Eligibility of credit availed on inputs before making payment regarding to the goods - Held that: - this can only be a procedural lapse - Taking into consideration that the appellants have paid the money within a short-time, we find that the demand is unsustainable.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1342
Provisional release of seized goods - Held that: - it is directed that in case the petitioner deposits the impugned demand by way of security other than cash or bank guarantee subject to satisfaction of the authority concerned, the goods so seized may be released forthwith - petition disposed off.
............
|
9911796707
