|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 1740 Records
-
2019 (9) TMI 1345
Admission of application for CIRP - issue of demand notice at belated stage - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The issue inter-se disputes of the Corporate Debtor cannot be taken into consideration for admitting or rejecting an application under Section 9 of IBC. Before filing of application under Section 9 of IBC, a Demand Notice was issued by the Operational Creditor under Section 8(1) of the IBC. On receipt of the notice, the Corporate Debtor has not raised any objection, nor there is anything on record to suggest a pre-existing dispute raised before issuance of Demand Notice under Section 8(1) of the IBC. The Adjudicating Authority had issued notice to the Corporate Debtor before admission of Application under Section 9 of the IBC, but no objection was raised by Corporate Debtor showing pre-existing dispute about the claims.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the Demand Notice was issued on 11.06.2019 before that no supply of products or services were there. But such dispute having not been raised by the Corporate Debtor before issuance of Demand Notice under Section 8(1) of IBC at belated stage, the Appellant cannot take such plea.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1344
Rejection of the Miscellaneous application filed by him before the Adjudicating Authority - HELD THAT:- While we are not inclined to issue any specific direction, give liberty to the Appellant to move an application u/s 12A for settling the claims of all the Creditors including the guarantors - If an application u/s 12A is filed by the Appellant, the ‘Committee of Creditors’ may decide as to whether the proposal given by the Appellant for settlement in terms of Section 12A is better than the ‘Resolution Plan’ as approved by it, and may pass appropriate order. However, as such decision is required to be taken by the ‘Committee of Creditors’, we are not expressing any opinion on the same.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1343
Consulting Engineering Services - receipt of certain services in the realm of testing, valuation and consulting engineering from abroad, stretching between the period 01.04.2005 to 17.04.2005 - validity of Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - HELD THAT:- here the collection of the tax is itself without the authority of law, then the refund of tax collected thus, is also not bound by the rigour of that law. The provisions of Section 11 B and the rigour/procedure thereof would not be applicable or attracted to the present case. Admittedly, the petitioner has suo motu, complied with the provisions of Rule 2(i)(d)(iv) and having done so, the petitioner should not be expected to suffer on account of compliance - this writ petition should succeed and the amount of tax remitted be refunded to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The collection of tax in terms of Rule 2(i)(d)(iv) prior to insertion of Section 66(A) is sans the authority of law. The petitioner is, without question, entitled to the refund sought for by it in this regard - the levy of interest would be justified for the period post the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 14.12.2009, confirming the position that the charge under Rule 2(i)(d)(iv) prior to the enactment of Section 66(A) is unconstitutional. Interest is awarded at the rate of 6% per annum from 05.05.2010 till date of payment - petition allowed in part.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1342
Transfer pricing adjustment in respect of technical knowhow fees paid by the assessee to its AE - TPO determining the ALP of a particular international transaction at Nil without resorting to any methods prescribed - assessee considered Net Profit Margin (NPM) as an appropriate Profit Level Indicator (PLI ) - HELD THAT:- Duty of the Ld. TPO is restricted only to the determination of arm's length price of an international transaction between two related parties by applying any of the methods prescribed under section 92C of the Act r/w rule 10B of the Rules. Thus, there is no provision under the Act empowering the Ld. TPO to determine the arm's length price on estimation basis, that too, by entertaining doubts with regard to the business expediency of the payment and in the process stepping into the shoes of the Ld. AO for making disallowance under section 37(1) of the Act. This, in our considered opinion, it is not in conformity with the statutory provision, hence, unacceptable. The Ld. TPO is duty bound to determine the arm's length price of the international transaction by adopting one of the method prescribed under the statute and cannot deviate from the restrictions/conditions imposed under the statute.
We find that the ld. TPO having not determined the ALP in conformity with the statutory provision and in the process having failed to demonstrate that ALP shown by the assessee is incorrect, the contentions of the ld. DR to restore the issue to the file of the ld. TPO for fresh determination of the ALP, is unacceptable. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we hold that there is no provision made in the statute empowering the ld. TPO for determining the ALP of a particular international transaction at Nil without resorting to any methods prescribed. Since, the relief is granted to the assessee on the preliminary issue of the ld. TPO not following the prescribed methods as provided in the statute for determination of ALP, the other arguments advanced by the ld. AR and the ld. DR on merits of ALP adjustment are left open and not adjudicated herein. Accordingly, the ground Nos. 1.1 to 1.3 raised by the assessee are allowed.
Transfer pricing adjustment in relation to mark up of recovery of expenses by the assessee from its AEs - primary facts are that the transaction being recovery of expenses from AE by the assessee, is not in dispute and hence, the same are not reiterated herein for the sake of brevity - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the entire transaction of recovery of expenses is a pass through transaction which had been categorically accepted by the ld. TPO in his order. Once, it is a pass through transaction, it is only a balance sheet item for the assessee. Hence, there cannot be any mark-up on the same. We find that assessee also reimburses certain expenses incurred by the AE without any mark-up. These facts are also accepted categorically by the ld. TPO.
We hold that there cannot be any mark-up on income side of the transaction alone as contemplated by the ld. TPO. Hence, the entire issue herein is only academic. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench decision of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Tesco Hindustan Service Centre Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT [2015 (5) TMI 1129 - ITAT BANGALORE] in the context of ALP adjustment on reimbursement - we direct the ld. AO/TPO to delete the ALP adjustment made on recovery of expenses. The other arguments made by the ld. AR and DR on inclusion/exclusion of comparables are not adjudicated herein as the relief is granted on preliminary issue. Accordingly, the Ground No. 2.1 raised by the assessee is allowed.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1341
Condonation of delay of 88 days in filing the appeal - stay of operation of the impugned order - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the miscellaneous application, seeking for stay of operation of the impugned order, there are no justifiable reason to entertain the prayer made by the Revenue - Accordingly, miscellaneous application for stay of operation of the impugned order is dismissed.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1340
Adjustment of arm’s length price of interest charged on loan given to AE - HELD THAT:- As decided in favour of the assessee in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2003-04 and 2004-05 [2014 (4) TMI 1097 - ITAT MUMBAI] aforesaid by the ITAT holding that the LIBOR is acceptable arm’s length interest rate, we respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench decide this issue in favour of the assessee and dismiss this ground of appeal of the revenue.
Non charging of fees from AE for providing letter of comfort - HELD THAT:- As decided in favour of the assessee in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2003-04 and 2004-05 [2014 (4) TMI 1097 - ITAT MUMBAI] held that the letter of comfort is outside the ambit of international transaction.
Disallowance of sales promotion expenses - HELD THAT:- As decided in favour of the assessee in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2003-04 and 2004-05 [2014 (4) TMI 1097 - ITAT MUMBAI] relevant art of the US comparable companies was incomplete and unreliable to justify the TP adjustment made by the AO/TPO and this finding recorded by the learned CIT(A) has not been rebutted or contributed by the learned DR. The learned DR has also not been able to point out any reason given by the AO/TPO to justify the change of tested party from the assessee company to the AE in US. We, therefore, find no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) deleting the TP adjustment made by the AO/TPO in respect of the international transaction involving availing of sales promotion services by the assessee from its AE in US.
Disallowance of interest on advances to subsidiary and group company - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2018 (1) TMI 1573 - ITAT MUMBAI] we direct the AO to delete disallowance of interest in respect of advances to Taida trading and Industries Ltd and recompute the disallowance of interest in respect of loan to KTC Hotel as per the direction of the Tribunal in earlier years. In the result this ground of appeal is partly allowed.
Disallowance of interest on share application money pending allotment - HELD THAT:- As decided in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2003-04 and 2004-05 [2014 (4) TMI 1097 - ITAT MUMBAI] there was no justification in making any disallowance on account of interest paid on the borrowed funds. It was noted by tribunal that the share application money was finally returned to the assessee with interest @ 19% and the interest so received was duly offered by the assessee in the relevant year. Similar view has been taken by the tribunal in subsequent years i.e. assessment year 1996-97 to 2002-03. As the issue involved in the year under consideration as well as all the material facts relevant thereto are similar to the earlier years, we respectfully follow the order of the tribunal for the said years and uphold the impugned order of learned CIT(A) giving relief to the assessee on this issue.
Expenditure on replacement of carpet - HELD THAT:- As decided in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2003-04 and 2004-05 [2014 (4) TMI 1097 - ITAT MUMBAI] issue decided in favour of assessee.
Difference on rate of foreign exchange on deposit placed with WOS (TIHK) - HELD THAT:- The said amount thus was in the nature of nonmonetary item which was required to be reported/recognised at the exchange rate prevailing on the date of relevant transaction as per AS-11 has rightly held by learned CIT appeals. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned CIT(Appeals) deleting the addition is made by the AO on this issue and upholding the same, we dismiss relevant grounds of revenue’s appeal.
Disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- We direct the assessing officer to accept the 10% of exempt income, which is allowed as suo moto disallowance by the assessee. In the result this ground of appeal is allowed.
Addition on account of notional interest on deposits with Taj Karnataka Ltd. - HELD THAT:- As relying on decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs Sridev Enterprises [1991 (1) TMI 52 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] we restore this ground of appeal to the file of assessing officer to verify the facts and grant relief to the assessee. The AO shall verify that as to whether no fresh deposits wad made with Taj Karnataka Ltd., during the period under consideration and in case the deposits were made in earlier years and no such disallowance on account of notional interest in earlier years, therefore, no such disallowance be made for this year. In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1339
Disallowance towards bad debts written off - AO disallowed the bad debts written off observing that the claim of bad debt due to non-delivery of stock is premature at this stage as final deficiency in amount cannot be arrived at now. He also observed that the case is under investigation and seized assets are yet to be realized and hence the amount cannot be treated as bad - CIT(A) sustained the disallowance - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the assessee company has shown the income from trading as revenue income in its profit and loss account and part of the outstanding amount has been written off as bad debts in its books of accounts. In such circumstances, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.R.F Ltd v. CIT [2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT] squarely apply to the facts of the case.
It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable and it is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee.
Since there is no dispute of write off of bad debts in the books of accounts of the assessee, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court we hold that the lower authorities are not justified in not allowing the claim for deduction of bad debts. Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance made towards bad debts and recompute the income of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1338
Deduction u/s 80P - interest expenditure as attributable to the interest income earned on FDRs maintained with Jaipur Cooperative Bank Ltd. - HELD THAT:- Bench has also taken into consideration the judgement cited by the Revenue authorities. However, the Bench noted that recent judgment on the particular issue has already been pronounced by the ITAT Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case [2019 (10) TMI 759 - ITAT JAIPUR] . Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the ITAT Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case (supra), on the issue in question, we allow the Ground No. 1 and 1.1 of the assessee and dismiss the Ground No. 2 of the Revenue.
Claim of deduction for contribution made to ‘Sparsh Trust’ - HELD THAT:-There is no change of circumstances brought to our notice after passing of the orders referred hereinabove or no change in law has been brought to our notice by either of parties. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue in question is covered in favour of the assessee by the earlier decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches in assessee’s own case. Respectfully following the earlier decisions of the Coordinate Benches, the contribution made by the assessee to SPARSH Trust is accordingly allowed as an eligible business expenditure under section 37(1) - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1337
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - HELD THAT:- There cannot be a pick and choose of comparables every year unless there are some material difference in facts and circumstances compelling to take a different conclusion. Company cannot be excluded from the comparable list merely for the reason of low turnover especially, when no turnover filter was applied by either party. Assessee is into investment advisory services, thus comparables selected should be functionally similar with that of assessee.
We direct the TPO to benchmark the assessee margin with the final list of comparable companies by including ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited and Kinetic Trust Limited in the final list of comparable companies and if it is found that they are within the range of ±5% the entire adjustment should be deleted. Appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1336
Undisclosed sales - Addition on the basis of the papers found in search conducted by the Central Excise Department - HELD THAT:- The whole case of the Revenue regarding undisclosed sales rest on the orders of the Central Excise authorities which has since been set-aside by the CESTAT vide its order dated 7.02.19. In view of the same, the additions so made by the Assessing officer towards gross profit on unrecorded sales and unaccounted purchases is directed to be deleted. At the same time, the Revenue would be at liberty to take action as per law where the matter so decided by the CESTAT is appealed against by the Revenue and is decided in its favour.
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - AR submitted that an amendment has been made by the Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015 in Section 40(a)(ia) whereby it is provided that 30% of any sum payable to a resident shall be disallowed if tax is not deducted at source under Ch. XVIIB as against the 100% disallowance presently made - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, there is no dispute that the assessee is liable to deduct TDS on interest payment to Shri Ramesh Chand and non-deduction of the TDS will entail disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. However, in view of the consistent position taken by the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal wherein the amendment in section 40(a)(ia) has been held retrospective in nature, the disallowance is restricted to 30% of the total amount. In the result, the crossobjection is partly allowed.
Addition towards telephone expenses and the personal/other than business use of telephone could not be ruled out and therefore, made disallowance being 10% of the expenses - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) held that the personal use of telephone by Director cannot be ruled out and no evidence is brought to consider the same as perquisite. Thus, the disallowance made by AO is reasonable and accordingly, confirmed the addition. It was submitted by the ld AR that the telephone expenses are incurred in respect of telephone installed at factory and mobile of directors and employee. The telephones are used for the purpose of the business. Hence, the adhoc disallowance of 10% of the expenses cannot be made. Even otherwise, in case of a company, no disallowance can be made on account of personal use. We donot see any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) and the same is hereby confirmed. In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1335
Maintainability of Appeal - low tax effect - monetary limit to file appeal before ITAT - HELD THAT:- Tax effect in these appeals is not exceeding the monetary limit as revised by the CBDT vide Circular dated 08.08.2019 for the purpose of filing of appeal by the department before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal from ₹ 20,00,000/- to ₹ 50,00,000/-.
Accordingly, the appeals of the department are not maintainable being monetary limit is less than/not exceeding ₹ 50,00,000/-.
The department is at liberty to file the Miscellaneous Application in case the tax effect in these appeals is found to be more then ₹ 50,00,000/- or the case falls in any of the exceptions of the circular.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1334
Release of seized goods alongwith conveyance - HELD THAT:- Issue Notice, returnable on 26th September 2019.
In the meanwhile, the respondent No. 2 is directed to forthwith release the goods as well as the conveyance of the petitioner which has been detained under the order dated 31.08.2019, Annexure 'A' to the petition.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1333
Deduction u/s 80P - denial of deduction as activities relate to giving loans to members/nominal members etc are earned the interest income - existence of two kinds of members of cooperative society - HELD THAT:- The earnings out of investments in PDCC, Credit Co-operative Banks and others, are exempt u/s 80P of the Act. Considering the settled nature of the issue at the level of Sai Prerana Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Pat Sanshta Maryadit [2019 (7) TMI 1582 - ITAT PUNE] and following the rule of consistency, said issue should be decided in favour of the assessee.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1332
TDS u/s 195 - disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) for non deduction of tax on commission payable to foreign agents - HELD THAT:- Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax and Another [2010 (9) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it has been held that a person paying interest or any other sum to a nonresident is not liable to deduct tax if such sums are not chargeable to tax under the Act. Section 195 contemplates not merely amounts, the whole of which are pure income payments; it also covers composite payments which has an element of income embedded or incorporated in that. The obligation to deduct tax at source is, however, limited to appropriate proportion of income chargeable under the Act forming part of gross sum of money payable to the non-residents.
Tribunal has merely applied the decision of the Supreme Court to the facts of the present case. Under the circumstances, the proposed question does not give rise to any question of law.
Disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- As in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Corrtech Energy P. Ltd. [2014 (3) TMI 856 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein the court has held that notice under sub-section (1) of section 14A provides that for the purpose of computing the total income under Chapter IV of the Act, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of the expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. The court recorded that in the facts of the said case, the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the assessee did not make any claim for exemption of any income from payment of tax and it was on that basis that the Tribunal held that the disallowance under section 14A of the Act could not be made. The court agreed with the view adopted by the Tribunal and did not find any question of law.
It is an admitted position that the assessee had not made any claim for exemption of any income from payment of tax. Tribunal has merely applied the decision rendered by the jurisdictional High Court to the facts of the present case which does not give rise to any question, much less, a substantial question of law, warranting interference. - Decided against revenue.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1331
Request for refund of SAD rejected - HELD THAT:- The Revenue fairly points out that the issue of refund of special additional duty was considered by the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 02.06.2017 and the issues decided in favour of the importer. This order has been accepted by the Department - Writ Petitions are thus liable to be allowed.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1330
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - time limitation - HELD THAT:- During the course of hearing, the respondent-corporate debtor has never denied the liability due nor has challenged the veracity of the invoices being attached as Annexure A-3 of the petition. Hence, there is no dispute as to the liability in respect of supplies in the form of grocery and goods between the operational creditor and the respondent-corporate debtor.
We agree with the submission made by the respondent's counsel with regard to the limitation. Admittedly, the instant petition is filed basing on the goods supplied in the month of September, 2014 and the corresponding invoices issued thereon i.e. in the month of September, 2014 itself. Thereafter, there was no payment made by the respondent-corporate debtor, which can extend the period of limitation. There was no acknowledgement of debt, except seeking information with regard to the claim of the petition, by the Administrator of the respondent-corporate debtor.
The petition is dismissed being barred by the period of limitation.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1329
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- There is a dispute, in relation to the unpaid operational debt, between the parties which is supported by abundant evidence. This dispute existed prior to the serving of demand notice under section 8 and the Operational Creditor had notice of existence of such dispute.
This dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory - this petition as under section 9(5)(2)(d) is rejected, the notice of dispute has been received by the Operational Creditor - petition dismissed.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1328
Deduction u/s 80IC - AO excluded the transport subsidiary, transport recoveries, claims received, miscellaneous income and sundry balances written back and net gain on exchange difference forming part of the income of such eligible units and in reducing the income claim - HELD THAT:- As relying on assessee's case [2016 (4) TMI 1163 - ITAT MUMBAI] Departmental Authorities have not examined the nature of subsidy with reference to the relevant industrial policy resolution and subsidy schemes, we are inclined to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh. As far as the issue of particular assessment year in which the subsidy deemed to have accrued, we may observe, the Assessing Officer did not raise this issue in course of assessment proceedings - thus the issue is hereby restored before the AO to decide the matter of controversy on the similar direction
Addition of the expenditure incurred for by back shares which is revenue in nature and is allowable u/s 37(1) - HELD THAT:- As relying on assessee's case [2016 (4) TMI 1163 - ITAT MUMBAI] assessee’s claim was not considered only for the reason that it was not made through a revised return of income. However, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetz India Ltd. [2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT] restriction imposed therein for not entertaining a claim otherwise by way of revised return of income is only applicable to the Assessing Officer. That being the case, we restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for considering afresh in the light of the decision relied upon by the assessee. - the issue is hereby restored before the AO to decide the matter of controversy on the similar direction as given by Hon’ble ITAT above
TP Adjustment - corporate guarantee to its overseas A.E - HELD THAT:- As relying on assessee's case [2016 (4) TMI 1163 - ITAT MUMBAI] there is no dispute that the internal CUP by way of letter received from HSBC indicates that the commission charged for financial guarantee is 0.5%. Further, it is relevant to note that the Department in assessee’s own case has accepted the arm's length price of corporate guarantee @ 0.5% in the assessment year 2006–07 and 2007–08. Thus, on consideration of overall facts and circumstances in the light of judicial pronouncements referred to above, we are of the considered opinion that the arm's length price of the corporate guarantee should be fixed at 0.5%. The Assessing Officer / Transfer Pricing Officer is directed to make adjustment accordingly.
Adopting the rate of 11.86% as the arm's length rate based on corporate bond rate - HELD THAT:- Rate of interest applicable in the country where the loan has been consumed in the case Aurionpro Solutions Ltd. [2017 (6) TMI 1087 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] ). The Hon’ble High Court further, affirmed the applicable rate of interest in the case where the assessee company had given the loan to its form AE. - We set aside the finding of the CIT(A) and restore the issue before the AO to apply the rate of interest prevailing in the country where the loan has been given/consumed. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1327
Permission to travel abroad - HELD THAT:- In the petitioner's present petition and the request that we are considering, we cannot call upon him to provide details of his assets and liabilities so also the movable and immovable properties belonging to him. The bank is at liberty to take out appropriate proceedings in the pending Original Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur.
It is only because the travel has to commence from tomorrow and that the applicant has moved this application at the last minute that we grant him leave to travel abroad. That is to fulfill his commitments and the statements made in the affidavit on oath are accepted as undertakings to this Court. It is stated that the petitioner-applicant will fly out of India on 22nd September, 2019 and return by 21st October, 2019 - Though the applicant has set out at Exhibit-A, the itinerary and addresses in Singapore and in Dubai and has also provided the contact numbers, that the petitioner-applicant shall strictly abide by this schedule and return to India by 21st October, 2019. The conditions imposed by this Court in its earlier order on 21st August, 2019, would continue to bind the petitioner-applicant.
The applications of the petitioner-applicant before this Court seeking leave to travel abroad having been granted does not mean that the Tribunal at Jabalpur is bound by the order and directions - notice of motion disposed off.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1326
Monetary limit - maintainability of appeal - low tax effect - HELD THAT:- Appeal of the department is not maintainable being monetary limit is less than/not exceeding ₹ 50,00,000/-.
The department is at liberty to file the Miscellaneous Application in case the tax effect in this appeal is found to be more then ₹ 50,00,000/- or the case falls in any of the exceptions of the circular.
............
|
9911796707
