Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2022 2022 (10) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 41 to 60 of 1245 Records

• 2022 (10) TMI 1206 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Seeking permission to withdraw this Writ Petition with liberty to pursue the matter before the respondents - HELD THAT:- This Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to purse the matter before the respondents.

  ---

• 2022 (10) TMI 1205 - ITAT BANGALORE
  

  TP adjustment - Comparable selection - Application of turnover filter - assessee is seeking exclusion of Exilant Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Tech Mahindra Ltd., Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Mindtree Ltd., Nihilent Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., Wipro Ltd., Tata Elxsi Ltd., Thirdware Solutions Ltd., Infosys Ltd. and Cybage Software Pvt. Ltd. from the list of comparables on the basis that these companies fail the turnover filter - HELD THAT:- Considering the facts and respectfully following the decision of Autodesk India Pvt Ltd.[2018 (7) TMI 1862 - ITAT BANGALORE] we hold that the companies whose turnover in the current year is more than Rs.200 crores should be excluded from the list of comparable companies.

  Inclusion of Isummations Technologies Ltd. company is functionally comparable to the assessee we hold that Isummations Technologies Ltd be included in the list of comparable companies.

  Yudiz Solutions Pvt. Ltd rejected by the TPO on the ground that it fails export turnover filter - As noticed that the export turnover of the company is Rs.5,22,89,062 against the total turnover of Rs.5,55,40,238 which is around 94.15% that clearly indicates that the company would pass the export turnover filter of >75%. Further the company is functionally comparable to the assessee. The coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case Prism Networks [2022 (2) TMI 1296 - ITAT BANGALORE] has considered the issue exclusion of a comparable company since the same is not featuring in the search matrix of the TPO - we remit the issue back to the TPO/AO for a fresh consideration of the comparability of the company after giving the assessee as reasonable opportunity of being heard.

  Addition u/s 69 - difference between amount of time deposits reported in Form No. 26 and closing balance of time deposits as per balance sheet - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the statement of reconciliation submitted it is also noticed that the assessee is renewing the deposits on maturity either in the same bank or in another one of these three banks. The AO has taken the total SFT transactions as reflected in Form 26AS and has compared the same with the Balance Sheet figure of Deposits as of 31.03.2018 and has made the addition for the differential amount. This in our considered view is not correct comparison since the SFT transactions in Form 26AS reflect the transactions that happened during a period of time whereas the Balance Sheet reflect the status as on the last day of the financial year. Therefore, a direct comparison of these two will not be the right approach.

  DRP has not analysed the submissions of the assessee that the deposits on maturity were redeposited and that Form 26AS reflects the entire movement. The ld AR submitted the additional evidence with the deposit confirmations from the bank and also submitted a reconciliation between the amount as per Form 26AS and the Balance Sheet. Considering that the lower authorities have not verified the details factually, we remit the issue back to AO for a proper verification of the bank confirmations.

  Addition being 20% of the ‘Advertisement Payments’ and ‘Information Technology expense’ - AO while holding that the expenses cannot be denied for the business activity, disallowed 20% of the expenses on the ground that the assessee had not furnished certain details, which was affirmed by the DRP - HELD THAT:- During the course of hearing, AR submitted that the relevant details and that the same is not examined. In view of this we remit the issue back to the AO with a direction to verify the details and the evidences with regard to the expenses and decide the allowability in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to submit all the relevant details and cooperate with the proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.

  Disallowance of employee’s contribution to provident fund remitted after the due date prescribed under the relevant statute, but before the due date for filing of return of income - HELD THAT:- As relying on CHECKMATE SERVICES P. LTD. [2022 (10) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT] we hold that the employees contribution to PF and ESI should be remitted before the due date as per explanation to section 36(1)(va) i.e., on or before the due date under the relevant employee welfare legislation like PF Act, ESI Act etc., for the same to be otherwise allowable u/s.43B. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(Appeals). The grounds taken by the assessee on this issue is dismissed.

  ---

• 2022 (10) TMI 1204 - ITAT BANGALORE
  

  Depreciation on goodwill - Goodwill arising on acquisition of Karnataka Breweries and Distilleries Limited and other subsidiaries - HELD THAT:- The coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for AY 2007-08 [2016 (9) TMI 1527 - ITAT BANGALORE] has held that depreciation on goodwill is not allowable based on the facts of the case of assessee. Respectfully following that decision, we hold that depreciation on goodwill is not allowable. Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed.

  Withholding tax amount on foreign royalty - assessee made an alternative submission by stating that if gross receipts are to be taxed, then the assessee would be entitled to the provisions of Double Tax Avoidance Agreement [DTAA] thereby the assessee should be allowed credit against the tax paid in the foreign country - HELD THAT:- Under the mercantile system of accounting, the income is to be offered to tax on accrual basis and therefore it is the gross income that needs to offered to tax in assessee’s case here. However the assessee is entitled to claim credit for the tax paid on the doubly taxed income in accordance section 90/91 read with Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules and in the given case, this fact is also held by the CIT(Appeals) that the assessee is entitled for credit for foreign tax paid. Though the assessee has not brought any new evidence on record before us to substantiate the tax deducted by the payer, in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the assessee should be given an opportunity to produce the evidence.

  Therefore, we remit the issue back to the AO with a direction to allow credit for the tax paid in foreign countries on the doubly taxed income in accordance with provisions of section 90 /91 r.w. Rule 128 based on the documents / evidences submitted by the assessee in this regard. The assessee is directed to submit the relevant documents and cooperate with the proceedings before the AO. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes.

  Disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) - TDS was not made on the year end provisions - HELD THAT:- We notice that in assessee’s own case [2022 (6) TMI 1433 - ITAT BANGALORE] has relied on the decision in the case of Biocon Ltd [2022 (4) TMI 795 - ITAT BANGALORE] and remanded the issue back to the AO to verify the details of payments and tax deducted and allow the expenditure where TDS is remitted to the Govt. account on or before the due date for filing the return of income u/s. 139(1).

  For the year under consideration we notice that the AO in the order u/s. 201(1) has verified the year end provisions with regard to subsequent payment and tax deduction thereon. AO did not make any addition u/s. 201(1) with respect to year end provisions and has charged only interest u/s. 201(1A) - We therefore are of the considered view that the verification of the year end provision has already been by the AO and by not making any addition u/s. 201 the AO has confirmed that tax has been deducted subsequently and remitted to the Govt. account before the due date for filing the return of income.

  Disallowance of depreciation by holding it as excess claim made by mistake - appellant has claimed additional depreciation on Plant & Machinery and Energy saving devices - HELD THAT:- CIT(Appeals) did not go into the details of the submissions, but has summarily rejected the claim of the assessee while confirming the disallowance. It is also noticed that the AO while disallowing the depreciation, did not call for any details in this regard from the assessee and has computed the disallowance by applying the depreciation percentages on the value of the assets. We therefore remit this issue back to the AO to verify the details of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee in the return of income and as declared in the tax audit report accordingly allow the depreciation. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes.

  Disallowance of Business Promotion expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) - non deduction certificate was not available at the time of payment - HELD THAT:- From the above, it is clear that certificate is issued for payments pertaining to FY 2009-10 and the impugned payment is made on 14.4.2009 falls within the period for which the certificate is issued. Considering all we hold no disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) is warranted towards payments made to GMR Sports towards business promotion expenses.

  Disallowance of bad advances written off u/s 36(1)(vii) - AO disallowed the same by holding that bad advances written off cannot be allowed as a deduction u/s. 36/37 and cannot be equated with bad debts written off so as to claim deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) - HELD THAT:- CIT(Appeals) while confirming the disallowance has not called for any details with regard to the break-up submitted. We further notice that he AO has also not called for any details from the assessee with regard to the bad advances written off. We therefore remit the issue back to the AO to verify the details of bad advances and decide in accordance with law. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes.

  ---

• 2022 (10) TMI 1203 - ITAT COCHIN
  

  Revision u/s 263 - Order erroneous and prejudicial or not? - as per CIT AO made no enquiry with regard to interest income received during the year and treatment same as income from other sources - HELD THAT:- The scheme of the IT Act is to levy and collect tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act and this task is entrusted to the Revenue. If due to erroneous order of the assessing officer, the Revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. As held in the case of Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. [2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT], the Commissioner can exercise revision jurisdictional u/s 263 if he is satisfied that the order of the assessing officer sought to be revised is (i)erroneous; and also (ii) prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

  AO is not expected to put blinkers on his eyes and mechanically accept what the assessee claims before him. It is his duty to ascertain the truth of the facts stated and the genuineness of the claims made in the return when the circumstances of the case are such as to provoke inquiry. Arbitrariness in either accepting or rejecting the claim has no place. The order passed by the AO becomes erroneous because an enquiry has not been made or genuineness of the claim has not been examined where the inquiries ought to have been made and the genuineness of the claim ought to have been examined and not because there is anything wrong with his order if all the facts stated or claim made therein are assumed to be correct.

  In the present case, the AO must have made an enquiry with regard to interest income received during the year and treatment same as income from other sources as no business activity has been carried on by the assessee in this assessment year under consideration. Being so, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. PCIT in invoking the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and in vacating the assessment order passed by the AO for denovo consideration. Decided against assessee.

  ---

• 2022 (10) TMI 1202 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Foreign Exchange Fluctuation Loss on External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) loans taken by assessee mainly for purpose of purchasing capital goods - disallowing market to Marked Loss (MTM Loss) on foreign currency swaps while computing income u/s. 115JB - deduction claimed u/s. 10B of Income Tax Act, while computing income from eligible unit under Chapter IV of Income Tax Act - HELD THAT:- It is not disputed by the revenue that as against the order passed under Section 263, the revenue was in appeal before this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Kolkata vs. Himadri Chemicals and Industries Ltd. [2022 (7) TMI 1463 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] and the same was dismissed by judgment dated 20th July, 2022. If that be the position, the present appeal cannot be independently pursued by the revenue. Furthermore, we note that substantial question of law No.(c) as raised in the appeal was not raised by the revenue in their appeal [Supra]

  The revenue cannot pursue this appeal and no interference is called for against the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2022 (10) TMI 1201 - ITAT DELHI
  

  Income deemed to accrue or arise in India - Royalty receipt - amount received by the Appellant from Indian Customers on account of sale of software/license charges India – Israel DTAA - Distinction between royalty paid on transfer of 'copyright' and consideration for transfer of 'copyrighted article' - HELD THAT:- We find force in the contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee. The issue raised in the present appeals was also there in VERINT SYSTEM LIMITED [2023 (1) TMI 464 - ITAT DELHI] as held this issue is covered in this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as relying on decision of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited [2021 (3) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT] and also Intrasoft Ltd. [2013 (11) TMI 1382 - DELHI HIGH COURT]

  Grant of tax credit without considering the provisions of section 240 - HELD THAT:- We find that while giving appeal effect, the AO should have considered the provisions of section 240 - We, therefore, direct the AO to consider the provisions of section 240 of the Act while giving appeal effect to our order.

  ---

• 2022 (10) TMI 1200 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Rejection of request to restore the appeal filed by the appellant - terms of the Amnesty Scheme not complied with - HELD THAT:- The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) and the learned Judge have rejected the request and upon perusing the scheme, its conditions, etc., the request of the appellant was rejected for available and correct reasons. There is no ground warranting our interference in the present intra - court appeal.

  Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2022 (10) TMI 1199 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Benefit under the said SVLDR Scheme denied - petitioner-assessee had admitted and quantified the tax payable by him prior to June 30, 2019 - HELD THAT:- In the case of Bioneeds India (P) Limited v. Commissioner of Central Tax [2022 (8) TMI 1315 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and Nikitha Build Tech (P) Limited v. Union of India [2022 (11) TMI 1148 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], this court has come to the conclusion that so long as the petitioner-assessee had admitted and quantified the tax payable by him prior to June 30, 2019, notwithstanding pendency of an enquiry or an investigation or audit on or before June 30, 2019, the petitioner-assessee would be entitled to the benefit of the SVLDR Scheme.

  The material on record in the instant case discloses that on October 1, 2018, the respondent had quantified the amount payable by the petitioner as Rs. 1,81,99,659 to which the petitioner had submitted a reply on June 6, 2019 admitting, accepting, agreeing and quantifying the service tax payable by him as Rs.1,37,05,125 much prior to June 30, 2019, which was the cut- off date under the SVLDR Scheme and clarified by the circulars dated August 27, 2019 and December 12, 2019 issued by the respondent.

  The respondents committed an error in not only passing the impugned order at annexure A rejecting the claim of the petitioner for benefit under the SVLDR Scheme, but also erred in passing the impugned order at annexure H dated April 26, 2021 and consequently, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

  Petition allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2022 (10) TMI 1198 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Dishonour of Cheque - legally enforceable debt - time limitation - rebuttal of presumption - Section 138 and 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - HELD THAT:- The High Court thought fit to quash the proceedings on the premise that on the date of summoning the Accused the legally enforceable debt was time barred - High Court seems to have proceeded on the footing that there is no averment in the entire complaint as regards any kind of acknowledgment of the said debt by the Accused within the period of three years i.e. within the limitation period of recovering the debt.

  Once a cheque is issued and upon getting dishonoured a statutory notice is issued, it is for the Accused to dislodge the legal presumption available Under Sections 118 and 139 reply of the N.I. Act. Whether the cheque in question had been issued for a time barred debt or not, itself prima facie, is a matter of evidence and could not have been adjudicated in an application filed by the Accused Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

  Appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2022 (10) TMI 1197 - ITAT DELHI
  

  Recalling of the ex-parte order passed by tribunal - HELD THAT:- The contention of the assessee is that the notice of hearing was not received by the assessee. An affidavit in this regard by Shri Arvind Jain, Director of NYK Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., is also filed by the assessee. Revenue has not brought any material to controvert the contents of the affidavit. Thus, for the reasons stated in the application, there was reasonable cause of non-appearance.

  As considering the material available on record and in the interest of principle of natural justice. Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed.

  ---

• 2022 (10) TMI 1196 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Irregularities in the recruitment process of Assistant Primary Teachers - HELD THAT:- It would not be appropriate to straightaway direct CBI investigation in a recruitment related controversy unless, of course the allegations are so outrageous and the perpetrators of the alleged offences are so powerful that investigation by the State police would be ineffectual. The reasons given by the learned Single Judge in directing investigation by the CBI at such an early stage of the proceeding may fall short of the standards laid down in the case of Sampat Lal [1984 (12) TMI 328 - SUPREME COURT]. But considering the submission of learned Counsel for the CBI and the fact that investigation by the said agency has substantially progressed, we do not want to stall such investigation at this stage and wait to see if the State Police can carry on the same investigation impartially.

  What weighed with the learned Single Judge in directing their termination in a case where they were not even the parties appears to be materials that was revealed in response to orders of the Court. Such orders reflect some kind of investigative role that was being undertaken by the Court itself in obtaining documents from the recruiting bodies. It was also not a case the respective appointments were of very recent origin.

  Thus, the present incumbent to the post of President, West Bengal Board of Primary Education shall continue to remain in the said post till final outcome of the writ petition before the Single Judge in which the directions of the said Petitioner's removal was passed. Dr. Manik Bhattacharya shall be entitled to file affidavits to the writ petitions as also any additional affidavit taken out in connection with the said writ petitions which may contain allegations against him.

  The CBI under the SIT shall continue their investigation as directed by the Single Judge and file a comprehensive report before this Court within a period of four weeks as regards progress of the investigation - The order passed directing cancellation of 269 candidates by the Single Judge on 13th June 2022 and the part of the order of the Division Bench confirming that order shall stand stayed and remain in abeyance.

  Application disposed off.

  ---

• 2022 (10) TMI 1195 - ITAT DELHI
  

  Stay on recovery against outstanding demands - assessee submitted that the final assessment orders passed by AO giving rise to the present demands are invalid due to non-mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) - HELD THAT:- DIN has not been mentioned. Therefore, as per the extant CBDT circular, referred to elsewhere in the order, such orders are to be declared as non est and never been issued. Though, we agree with learned DR that these aspects have to be thrashed out by the parties at the time of full length hearing of the appeals, however, there is good ground for grant of absolute stay on recovery of demands as prima facie case and balance of convenience are in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to stay his hands from recovery of the outstanding demand pertaining to the impugned assessment years for a period of 180 days from the date of this order or till the disposal of the appeals, whichever is earlier.

  As accepting assessee’s prayer, which was not opposed by learned Departmental Representative, we direct the Registry to fix the corresponding appeals for hearing on 07.02.2023, a date consented by both the parties.

  ---

• 2022 (10) TMI 1194 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Grant of bail - whether the applicant has a valid visa or passport? - HELD THAT:- The applicant has relied upon an order of Abdul Sattar v. State of NCT of Delhi passed in BAIL APPLN. 1014/2022 dated 08.07.2022 to show that bail can be granted if the accused has spent substantial period in jail. However, the said application does not deal with the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Mr Kushwaha, learned counsel seeks and is granted four weeks to address arguments.

  List on 18.11.2022.

  ---

• 2022 (10) TMI 1193 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Recovery of Port demurrage and detention charges dues - vessel is stuck with the cargo on board and vessel is on demurrage - HELD THAT:- Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 states the customs have permitted warehousing of Pigeon Peas and if petitioner applies customs will consider issuing provisional release order for the Pigeon Peas. As regards Soya bean customs information is that those are genetically modified and its import banned in India - petitioner states that petitioner may be permitted to atleast discharge the entire cargo on board the vessel so that the vessel is not held up and petitioner is not liable to pay further demurrage to the vessel owner.

  Stand over to 21st October 2022.

  Stand over to 21st October 2022.

  ---

• 2022 (10) TMI 1192 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Reopening of assessment - income alleged to have escaped assessment was found to be less than Rs.50 lacs - Scope of new provision section 148A - Scope of amendment by the Finance Act, 2021 which has amended Income Tax Act by introducing new provisions i.e. sections 147 to 151 w.e.f. 1st April, 2021 - HELD THAT:- There is no quarrel with the legal position existing and in force prior to 01.04.2021 that under the unamended provisions contained in Section 149, sub-section (1)(b) of the Act, proceedings u/s 148 of the Act could be initiated by issuance of notice even if four years had elapsed but not more than six years elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year in cases where the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to Rupees One lac or more for that year. However the unamended provisions allowed the authority to reopen assessment by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act under the pre-amended scheme only.

  The argument that since pre amended provision contained in Section 149 of the Act, permitted the authorities to reopen and issue notice under Section 148 of the Act, therefore, even after amendment of provisions of Section 149 of the Act, repealed provisions could be taken recourse to and in that case, provisions of Clause (a) sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the Act would not apply, prima facie appears to be against the legislative intention. In respect of income below Rs.50 lacs which is alleged to have escaped assessment, the new legislative regime is that notice under Section 149 of the Act shall not be issued if there is a bar as engrafled under Clause (a) thereof. It is only when the amount exceeds Rs.50 lacs, the provisions of Clause (b) stand attracted, subject to the limitation prescribed therein.

  Reliance placed on judgments of various High Courts, at this stage, we find to be distinguishable because none of those are cases where the income alleged to have escaped assessment was found to be less than Rs.50 lacs. The final order and the interim orders in certain cases have been passed on the facts and circumstances and the applicability of the provisions of Section 148 and 149 of the Act to those peculiar facts and circumstances.

  The argument that ASHISH AGARWAL [2022 (5) TMI 240 - SUPREME COURT]has allowed that the reassessment proceedings should be continued by treating notices under Section 148 of the Act as notices under Section 148(A) of the Act, does not come to the aid of the respondents because even if the period of limitation has been extended from time to time by issuance of notifications extending time line as provided under Section 149 of the Act, in any case, present is a case where notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued only on 26.07.2022, therefore, the source of authority would be Section 148 of the Act subject to the bar under Section 149 of the Act as is existed on the day when the notice was issued. Source of authority could not be traced to pre existing provision which was no longer in force and available when notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 26.07.2022.

  Thus we find no reason to depart from the orders which have been passed in other cases protecting assessee against the further proceedings where it pertains to relevant assessment year of 2016-2017 and the income alleged to have escaped assessment is found to be less than Rs.50 lacs. Accordingly, further proceedings pursuant to impugned notice dated 26.07.2022 u/s 148 of the Act, shall remain stayed till the final disposal of this writ petition.

  ---

• 2022 (10) TMI 1191 - ITAT MUMBAI
  

  Maintainability of appeal before ITAT against order passed u/s 119(2) - HELD THAT:- As we found the contentions of the Revenue tenable that no appeal against the order passed u/s 119(2)(b) can be heard by ITAT, if any assessee files such appeal before the ITAT against the order of Commissioner passed u/s 119(2)(b) is not admissible and even if admitted, ITAT is not empowered by virtue of section 253 to decide the matter.

  We further observed against such type of orders i.e. order passed u/s 119(2)(b) can be appealed directly to the Secretary, CBDT or can be challenged through Writ before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. In view of above earlier order passed by ITAT is beyond its Jurisdiction, hence, appeal of the assessee is rejected treating the same as infructuous.

  ---

• 2022 (10) TMI 1190 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI
  

  Seeking custody of the assets of the Corporate Debtor, seized pursuant to Inventory cum Seizure List - remission of amount to the Liquidator account within two weeks of the receipt of the order - handing over possession of the properties - overriding effect of IBC would prevail over the Customs Act - raising of fresh issue in the appeal instead of taking the side of one of the parties before the Court.

  Whether the provisions of the IBC would prevail over the Customs Act? - HELD THAT:- The answer is no more res-integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sundaresh Bhatt [2022 (8) TMI 1161 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that Once moratorium is imposed in terms of Sections 14 or 33(5) of the IBC as the case may be, the respondent authority only has a limited jurisdiction to assess/determine the quantum of customs duty and other levies. The respondent authority does not have been the power to initiate recovery of dues by means of sale/confiscation, as provided under the Customs Act.

  Whether the Intervenor can raise a fresh issue in the appeal instead of taking the side of one of the parties before the Court? - HELD THAT:- Admittedly the Intervenor had filed its own appeal in order to challenge the findings recorded in its I.A. No. 22 of 2019 but their Appeal No. 94 of 2020 was dismissed on 20.01.2020. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. [1999 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] has observed that We cannot pass such an order in an intervention application. The only purpose of granting an intervention application is to entitle the intervener to address arguments in support of one or the other side. Having heard the arguments, we have decided in the assessee’s favour. The interveners may take advantage of that order.

  No other point has been raised - there are no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

  ---

• 2022 (10) TMI 1189 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Recall of order wherein matter was dismissed due to low tax effect - revenue appeal dismissed on low tax effect - HELD THAT:- As brought to our notice by the Department that the prosecution under Section 276C(2) of IT Act has been launched vide registration No. 389/2019 before the Hon’ble Civil Court of Patan and hence, the matter falls under the Exception 10(f) as mentioned in the Circular being No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 and 20.08.2018 and also Circular No. 19/2019 dated 08.08.2019. None appeared on behalf of the assessee.

  Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the matter, we recall the order. The Registry is directed to put the matter on Board upon giving notice to the respective parties. Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is allowed.

  ---

• 2022 (10) TMI 1188 - ITAT DELHI
  

  Addition u/s 56 (2)(viii) - interest on enhanced compensation for acquisition of agricultural land by Government under Land Acquisition Act - denial of exemption from tax under section 10(37) - HELD THAT:- As the land of the assessee was acquired under the old Land Acquisition Act, but, the intention of the legislature is also clear as per the said Circular wherein the compensation received by the assessee u/s 96 of the RFCTLAAR Act has to be held as exempt from levy of income-tax. Therefore, the grievance of the assessee may kindly be allowed.

  CIT(A) was not correct in upholding the assessment order wherein the AO has granted part relief to the assessee u/s 57(iv) of the Act and not applying the provisions of section 10(37) of the Act on the interest received by the assessee on enhanced compensation.

  Therefore, the orders of the authorities below are set aside being not sustainable and not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. AO is directed to allow deduction u/s 10(37) of the Act to the assessee on the entire amount of interest received on enhanced compensation u/s 28 of the Act. Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2022 (10) TMI 1187 - ITAT MUMBAI
  

  Unexplained cash credit - unexplained sources of cash deposit made during demonetisation period - failure of the assessee to satisfactorily explain cash sales - assessee is engaged in the business of wholesale and retail trading of gold bar, gold ornaments, diamond ornaments and other precious articles - HELD THAT:- There is merit in the contentions of A.R that the provisions of sec.68 can be invoked only in cases of cash credits, which were not offered as income, i.e., a legal fiction has been created in sec.68 to assess certain cash credits, which were not otherwise shown as income.

  In the instant case, the assessee has declared the cash sales as its income in the profit and loss account. Hence it is not a case of cash credits, which were not shown as income, in order to attract the provisions of sec.68.

  We notice that an identical issue has been considered in the case of Hirapanna Jewellers [2021 (5) TMI 447 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] and it was decided in favour of the assessee.

  The books of accounts and stock register have been found to be correct by the auditors and survey officials. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO also did not find any fault or defect in the books of accounts or stock register maintained by the assessee. The impugned deposits have been made by the assessee from the cash balance available in the books of accounts, which were duly generated on sale of goods out of stock available with the assessee. It is not the case of the AO that the purchases of stock made by the assessee and entered in the stock register were not genuine. As observed by the Visakhapatnam bench of ITAT, there is no case of making abnormal profits from the cash sales recorded by the assessee. The observations of the AO with regard to non-response by the customers to the notices issued by him and non-filing of returns by the customers are not relevant to the facts of the present case.

  Thus we hold that the assessee has duly explained the sources for making cash deposits into its bank account. Since the sources of cash have been generated out of business activities of the assessee, the same cannot also be assessed u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained asset - Decided against revenue.

  ---

1234567........ 63