|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 1750 Records
-
2018 (1) TMI 1353
Rate of depreciation on plastic moulds used in electric goods - 30% or 15% - The contention of the assessee that in the past, such depredation has been granted - Held that:- Respectfully following the decision in the earlier case, higher rate of depreciation allowed - Decided against the revenue.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1352
Demand notice in Form VAT 202 dated 8.1.2018 - recovery of sales tax deferment - Held that:- While the petitioner is still entitled, if they so choose, to repay the entire amount even before the end of the financial year 2017-18, ie before 31.3.2018, the authorities can take coercive steps, for recovery of the said amount, only thereafter and not before - demand notice set aside.
The petitioner shall pay the sales tax deferment amount due, for the assessment year 2003-04, on or before 31.3.2018, failing which it is open to the respondents to take steps for recovery of the said amount on or after 1.4.2018.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1351
Transfer pricing adjustments - two segments i.e. “Software Research & Development Service” and “Information Technology (IT) back-office support services” - exclusion and inclusion of certain comparables - Held that:- the grounds of the appeal related to transfer pricing adjustment are allowed partly for statistical purpose.
Exemption u/s 10A - allocation of directors remuneration between STP unit and non-STP unit - Held that:- matter remanded back to the file of the AO for fresh examination.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1350
The Supreme Court of India ordered that the matters be listed after four weeks for final disposal. (Citation: 2018 (1) TMI 1350 - SC)
-
2018 (1) TMI 1349
Rectification of mistake - Maintainability of appeal - Challenge to Rectification Order - Investment allowance not available to the assessee, as it is engaged in mining raising, loading and transporting of gypsum from mines owned by RSMM Ltd. and no manufacture or production of any article or things takes place - Whether subsequent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in case of CIT Vs. Sesa Goa Ltd. (2004 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT) does amount to an error apparent on the face of record and the learned Tribunal was required to amend/ correct its order in light of final verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of rectification?"
Held that:- In view of the decisions in Chem Amit vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (2004 (11) TMI 24 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) and CIT (Central), Kanpur vs. Ekta Flavours Pvt. Ltd.(2010 (8) TMI 1109 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT), the appeal is not appropriate remedy. Hence, the same is dismissed. It will be open for the appellant to prefer appropriate proceedings. The period taken from 2007 till today will be taken into consideration while deciding the question of limitation.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1348
Disallowance on account of broken period interest - treated as capital expenditure - Held that:- The issue urged by the Revenue herein stands concluded by the decision of this Court in CIT v/s. HDFC Bank Ltd., (2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) - No substantial question of law.
Appeal admitted on the substantial question of law at (b) - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance made on account of depreciation of leased assets when the assets were not actually owned by the assessee and leased out, but the transaction was in the nature of finance only?”
-
2018 (1) TMI 1347
The Supreme Court of India dismissed the Special Leave Petition after allowing exemption from filing official translation and condoning delay. No valid ground for interference was found.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1346
Addition on account of accrued interest on loans which are classified as "Non-performing Assets" - Held that:- The issue involved in this appeal is no more res-integra in view of the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and another V/s Canfin Homes Ltd. [2011 (8) TMI 178 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] as held Non-performing asset is an asset in respect of which interest has remained unpaid and has become past due. Once a particular asset is shown to be a non-performing asset, then the assumption is it is not yielding any revenue.
When it is not yielding any revenue, the question of showing that revenue and paying tax would not arise. As is clear from the policy guidelines issued by the National housing Bank, the income from non-performing asset should be recognised only when it is actually received. That is what the Tribunal held in the instant case. Therefore, the contention of the Revenue that in respect of non-performing assets even though it does not yield any income as the assessee has adopted a mercantile system of accounting, he has to pay tax on the revenue which has accrued notionally is without any basis.
Mere nomenclature adopted with reference to the bad loans and advances receivable, would refer to all non-performing assets of any nature, of whatever category it was placed as a non-performing asset and accordingly the substantial question of law is answered against the Revenue.- Decided in favour of the assessee
-
2018 (1) TMI 1345
Condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) - condonable period of limitation - CENVAT Credit - Held that:- It is borne out from the record that while the original order was passed on 25.08.2014, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 10.12.2015. It is not in dispute that the limitation for filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is 30 days and the appellate authority is vested with the power to condone the delay of one month only - The CESTAT rendered a categorical finding that the fact that the appellant received the order in original on 17.09.2014 sufficiently establishes that the plea of the appellant that it received the order copy only on 26.10.2015 was factually wrong.
Once it is found that the appellant’s plea that it received the order copy only on 26.10.2015 as false, the question of entertaining any alternative plea does not arise.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1344
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Held that:- It is not known when the Loans and Advances shown in the Balance Sheets are payable. In these facts and circumstances, placing reliance on the Certificate of the Banker, it is not possible to assume that the Loans and Advances shown in the Balance Sheets are not paid.
In view of the above discussion, it can only be held that Petitioners failed to establish the existence of 'financial debt' as on 31.3.2012. When there is no mention about the names of the Petitioners in the Audited Accounts for the year 2012, basing upon the finding it is not possible to hold that a financial debt is due to the Petitioners from the Respondent. Even assuming that there is a financial debt, it is not known when it is payable. There is no material on record to show that when the so-called financial debt is payable. No demand is made by the Petitioners to recall financial debt by issuing notice, though issuance of notice is neither directory nor mandatory nor contemplated. In these circumstances, it is not possible to conclude that a default occurred in repayment of financial debt.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1343
Liability of tax - amount collected towards supply of study material/ kit, from the candidates - Commercial Training and Coaching Services - benefit of N/N. 12/03-ST dated 20.06.2003 but was not allowed on the ground that the said study materials are essential part of coaching service and cannot be abated from the taxable value - Held that:- The identical issue has come up in the assessee’s own case M/s. Fittjee Limited Versus CST, New Delhi [2017 (2) TMI 1370 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that Appellants have separate receipt for supply of books and study materials indicating the price clearly. They have sold such study materials /books to non-registered students, thus the benefit cannot be denied.
Benefit of Notification allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1342
Rejection of Form I submitted by the appellant / writ petitioner - rejection on the ground of non-entertainment - Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2008 - Held that:- Sub section (3) of section 6 mandates the applicant to remit 90% of the arrears and if the applicant has not paid 90% of the amount payable under Section 7, along with the application, the designated authority shall summarily reject the application - Admittedly, the father of the appellant has paid only 63% of the arrears as against the said mandate of 90% of the arrears - In the considered opinion of this Court, it cannot be termed as mere omission or defect so as to attract Rule 3(5) of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Rules, 2008.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant / writ petitioner has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions and the first respondent, in exercise of the power under Section 6(3) of the Act, has rightly rejected the application - petition dismissed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1341
We permit the petitioners to move the High Court, whereby the High Court can take note of the order passed by this Court and pass appropriate orders to protect the interests of the home buyers - If the petitioners are grieved by the High Court order, liberty is granted to challenge the same - petition disposed off.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1340
Grant of deduction under Section 80-IB - conditions for qualifying as a small scale industry was to be fulfilled in the initial year alone and not on year to year basis for grant of deduction - Held that:- The impugned order of the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's Appeal by following the decision of the Karnataka High Court in M/s. Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd Vs. DCIT (2014 (8) TMI 596 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) holding that the deduction under Section 80IB cannot be denied to an assessee who has been granted its benefit in the earlier years of assessment during the span of 10 years when exemption is available thereunder. The learned counsel for the parties very fairly point out that the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. Ace Multi Axes Systems (Supra) has now been reverted by the Apex Court in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. ACE Multi Axes Systems Ltd. (2017 (12) TMI 372 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). Thus the condition of Section 80 - 1B of the Act are required to be satisfied on year to year basis. - Decided against assessee.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1339
The Supreme Court of India issued notice in the case with citation 2018 (1) TMI 1339 - SC. Mr. A.K. Sikri and Mr. Ashok Bhushan JJ. were presiding. Petitioner(s) represented by Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG, Ms. Vimla Sinha, Adv., Ms. Anita Sahani, Adv., Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR. No representation for the Respondent(s).
-
2018 (1) TMI 1338
Validity of reopening of assessment - Held that:- The facts on record do not show any exceptional circumstances where this petition should be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India especially in view of the fact that the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal under the Act itself.
It is the settled view of the courts that normally it is the statutory remedy, which should be availed of unless any exceptional circumstances are shown to exist where the statutory remedy is to be by-passed. In this case the petitioner avers that the reasons that were recorded were not issued to him. The record on the other-hand reflects that the petitioner was not co-operating with the department and had shown three different names at three different places. The reasons had been recorded they have been sent to him as stated in the counter affidavit filed by the department.
Not inclined to interfere at this stage. It is open to the petitioner to take recourse to the statutory remedy available to him under the Act.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1337
Maintainability of appeal - Held that:- From the record, it appears that, in spite of notice there is no representation on behalf of assessee – appellants. When it is so, then it appears that they are not serious in pursuing their appeal - It may be mentioned that as per the maxim VIAILATIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT, law helps those who are vigilant and not those who go to sleep - the appeal is dismissed for default.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1336
Income received by the assessee from sub-letting - nature of income - income from house property or busniss income - Held that:- Under section 22 of the Act the charge to tax of income from house property is based on the ownership of such property. The admitted position in the present case is that the assessee is only a tenant and not the owner of the property. It is also not the case of the revenue that the tenancy is for a period of more than 12 years which could be construed as ownership rights u/s 27(iiib) of the Act. Therefore the income in question cannot be assessed as income from house property. See M/s Konark Furniture Pvt. Ltd case [2014 (12) TMI 1321 - ITAT KOLKATA]
-
2018 (1) TMI 1335
Corporate insolvency resolution process - financial debt - Held that:- RP would not merit any detailed consideration and the same are hereby rejected. The aforesaid detailed facts would further show that the parties have provided for the course to be adopted in the guarantee agreement in case of default by the principal borrower in relation to guarantee. It is well settled that the right of the parties under section 128 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 are subject to the terms of the agreement between the parties and hence the guarantor or the Resolution Professional are not entitled to raise an objection which goes against the express terms of guarantee agreement duly executed between the Financial Creditor and the ESSL Corporate Debtor. Therefore on that count also the objection raised by the RP are liable to be rejected.
As a sequel to the above discussion we dispose of this application as per the following directions:
(a) The applicant being a financial creditor has to be given its due place in the Committee of Creditor by permitting it to join the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process initiated in the matter of ESSL - Corporate Debtor.
(b) The applicant shall be entitled to have its voting rights determined as per its proportion.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1334
Removal of the Statutory Auditors - Audit of accounts - Held that:- There is no reason to create any impediment in the Respondents' availing the scheme floated by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs for filing of the Returns for the defaulting years, which consequently shall result in restoration of their DINS, this Bench is of the opinion that it would be apposite and expedient to direct the financial statements to be audited by an Independent Auditor for the purpose of laying it before the shareholders and filing them with ROC.
This Bench appoints M/S. K.G. Somani and Company, Delight Cinema Building, Gate No.2, 3rd Floor, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi (Mobile No. 9899904779, 9871098777), as the Statutory Auditors to audit the accounts for the relevant years. The Auditor shall conduct the audit in a time bound manner to ensure that respondents are able to take advantage of scheme floated.
............
|
9911796707
