|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 421 to 440 of 1557 Records
-
2025 (1) TMI 1138
Cancellation of petitioner’s registration on the ground of non-filing of return - HELD THAT:- The petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned orders by both the concerned authorities and by directing the respondent CGST/WBGST authority to restore the petitioner’s registration and open the portal for a period of 45 days from date of communication of this order by the counsel of the respondent authority to enable the petitioner to make the payment of revenue due as well as any other due including penalty to be indicated by the respondent authority concerned within a period of 15 working days. If the petitioner fails to make the payment of revenue due after indication of the amount by the GST authority, the respondent authority concerned shall be free to block the portal again and cancel the registration.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1137
Challenge to impugned notice on the limited ground that the same came to be issued even before the time granted to the petitioner to respond to Form GSTR DRC-01A had expired - HELD THAT:- It is always open to the petitioner to make a request of the copy of the materials sought to be relied upon by the authority. If any request is made, the same would be considered in accordance with law. It is also open to the petitioner to raise all contentions in response to DRC-01A including jurisdictional issues. The Respondent authorities would consider such request/ reply if any filed and pass orders in accordance with law after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1136
Challenge to impugned order passed by the respondent - violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner seeks an opportunity to explain the discrepancies noted during the inspection of the petitioner's business premises - the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 10% of the disputed tax and that he may be granted one final opportunity before the adjudicating authority to put forth their objections to the proposal, to which the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent does not have any serious objection.
HELD THAT:- The impugned order dated 19.07.2024 is set aside. The petitioner shall deposit 10% of the disputed taxes as admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1135
Vires of Section 17(5)(c) and 17(5)(d) of the Central GST Act/Punjab GST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The issue raised by the petitioner in the present petition assailing the vires of Section 17(5)(c) and 17(5)(d) of the Central GST Act/Punjab GST Act, 2017, is no more res integra in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax vs. Safari Retreats (P.) Ltd., [2024 (10) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT], wherein the Supreme Court has concluded 'The challenge to the constitutional validity of clauses (c) and (d) of Section 17(5) and Section 16(4) of the CGST Act is not established.'
While the Apex Court has directed all the petitions to be heard by the concerned High Court and examine the functionality test, it is found that in the present case, the matter can be remanded back to the respondents to re-examine the aspect and pass a speaking order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The writ petition is accordingly partly allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1134
Prospective omission of Rule 96(10), Rule 89(4A) and Rule 89(4B) from the CGST Rules, 2017 - omission of N/N. 20/2024- Central Tax dated 08th October, 2024, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs framed Central Goods & Service Tax (Second Amendment) Rules, 2024 and as per Rule 10, Rule 96(10) - HELD THAT:- Both Minutes of the GST Council as well as Notification No.20/2024-Central Tax dated 08th October, 2024 are ordered to be taken on record of Special Civil Application No. 22519 of 2019 and in view of the subsequent development after 19th September, 2024, the order dated 19th September, 2024 is ordered to be recalled and the matter is ordered to be re-notified for further consideration on 19th December, 2024 before the regular Bench.
Application disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1133
Violation of principles of natural justice - Service of SCN - impugned order is challenged on the premise that the notices and orders were uploaded under the “view additional notices and orders” tab on the GST Portal, thereby, the petitioner was unaware of the initiated proceedings and thus unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings - Challenge to impugned order passed by the respondent relating to the assessment year 2018-19 - excess claim of Input Tax Credit over and above that of the tax paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism - the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax and that they may be granted one final opportunity before the adjudicating authority to put forth their objections.
HELD THAT:- The impugned order is set aside and the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed tax within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On complying with the above condition, the impugned order of assessment shall be treated as show cause notice and the petitioner shall submit its objections within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with supporting documents/material. If any such objections are filed, the same shall be considered by the respondents and orders shall be passed in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1132
Denial of benefit of input tax credit on account of the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of Section 16 of the CGST/SGST Acts - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the assertion of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that on account of notification of sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the CGST/SGST Acts, the petitioner will be entitled to input tax credit, which has been denied to the petitioner by Ext.P3 order, the writ petition will stand disposed of, setting aside Ext.P3 to the extent that it denied input tax credit to the petitioner on account of the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 16 of the CGST/SGST Acts and directing the competent authority to pass fresh orders, after taking note of the provisions contained in Section 16(5) of the CGST/SGST Acts and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1131
Applicability of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, as amended by Notification No. 54/2018-Central Tax dated 9.10.2018 - retrospective or prospective effect - validity of summons and recovery proceedings based on the retrospective application of Notification No. 54/2018 - HELD THAT:- This Court in case of Cosmo Films Limited [2024 (10) TMI 275 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has held that 'On perusal of above notification, it is clear that same has come into effect from 9th October, 2018 and as such there is a mistake apparent on record in CAV judgment dated 20th October, 2020 wherein it is incorrectly stated that said notification has come into effect from 23rd October, 2017.'
This Court while considering the mistakes pointed out in Misc. Civil Application No.1 of 2020 in Special Civil Application No. 15833 of 2018 has passed the rectification order holding that Notification No.54 of 2018 shall apply prospectively with effect from 9th October, 2018 only.
The summons, issued, notices as well as recovery proceedings on the basis of retrospective operation of Notification No.54 of 2018 dated 09.10.2018 is held to be without jurisdiction. The summons issued, notices as well as recovery proceedings are quashed and set aside as Notification No.54/2018 would be applicable prospectively with effect from 09.10.2018 and therefore, the amount quantified for the period prior to 09.10.2018 towards alleged erroneous refund would not survive.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1130
Delay of 1585 days in filing a revised return u/s 139(5) - Denial of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The impugned order refusing to condone the delay visits the Petitioner with serious civil consequences. Such an order should generally be made after compliance with principles of natural justice and fair play. The fact that Section 119 (2) does not explicitly refer to any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing is not grounds for noncompliance with principles of natural justice.
In the absence of any provision to the contrary, such principles should be read into the unoccupied interstices of a statute.
The impugned order is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the CBDT for fresh consideration of the Petitioner’s application for condonation of delay. Further consideration should be following the law and after giving the Petitioner an opportunity of a hearing. The CBDT or the Member to whom such function is assigned must pass a reasoned order and communicate to the Petitioner. This exercise must be completed within three months of uploading this order. All contentions on merits are, however, left open.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1129
Refusal to condone a 15-day delay in filing Form-10B on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown - HELD THAT:- There is no serious denying that the reconstruction and redevelopment of the trust premises have been going on since 2018. Necessary approvals are on record. There is a reference to the intervening Covid pandemic. If, for all these reasons, there was some disruption in the normal functioning of the trust office, entailing a marginal delay of 15 days in filing Form-10B, a case of sufficient cause was made out.
The reason is neither frivolous nor can it be said to be some excuse to derive some undue benefits. Even assuming that each day’s delay must be explained, considering the delay is only 15 days and the cause shown is eminently acceptable, the impugned order warrants interference.
Thus, condone the delay of 15 days in filing Form-10B of the IT Act.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1128
Quantum of deduction available u/s 80IA - determining the ALP and the market value for the purposes of Section 80IA - ALP adjustment of specified domestic transactions from Associated Enterprises - electric power transferred by the Assessee from its eligible unit to its non-eligible unit - adjustments made on account of transfer of power as per the provision of section 92F r.w.s 80IA
HELD THAT:- In the present case, the Assessee had computed the ALP by adopting the CUP method as provided in Rule 10B (1) (a) of the Rules. TPO had also accepted it as the most appropriate method in the facts of the present case. Thus, there is no dispute that CUP method is required to be used for determining the ALP and the market value for the purposes of Section 80IA of the Act.
As is apparent from Sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Rule 10B (1) of the Rules, it is necessary to determine the price charged or paid for the property or goods transferred or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled transaction.
In the present case, the transaction relates to the sale of electricity by the Assessee’s eligible unit to a non-eligible unit. Thus, a comparable uncontrolled transaction would necessarily involve determining a transaction of sale of power in a similar uncontrolled transaction.
CUP method would be an appropriate method only if the transactions are identical inasmuch as there are no differences that would materially affect the price in an open market. And, if there is any difference which affects the price, the same can be reasonably ascertained and its effect can be eliminated by an appropriate adjustment.
Determine the market value or the ALP of power supplied by power plants established by the Assessee to its other units - The market for supply of electricity is regulated. Thus, to apply the CUP method, it would be necessary to ascertain the comparable transactions that are similar in material aspects and there is no difference between the transactions which has a bearing on the price of the power supplied.
Whether power traded on IEX cannot be compared with the power supplied by a SEB ? - In the present case, the Assessee had supplied excess power to UPPCL in UP region at the rate of Rs. 4.39 per kWh. Thus, the said transaction was accepted by the learned DRP as well as the learned ITAT as an internal uncontrolled transaction. The rate at which such electricity was supplied by the Assessee being Rs. 4.39 per kWh, was rightly accepted as an ALP.
Supreme Court in Jindal Steel and Power Limited [2023 (12) TMI 417 - SUPREME COURT] had accepted the rates at which electricity was supplied by the SEBs to industrial consumers as being the market value of the said supplies for the purposes of Sub-section (8) of Section 80IA of the Act. Decided in favour of the Assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1127
Deduction u/s 80IB (10) - only requirement was that the construction of the housing project must be completed on or before 31 March 2008 - CBDT, by the impugned notification, dated 5 January 2011, which is a purported “corrigendum” to the notification dated 3 August 2010, restricted the benefit of the proviso to Section 80IB (10) only to projects approved on or after 1 April 2004 and before 31 March 2008.
Whether the impugned notification dated 5 January 2011, styled as a corrigendum to the notification dated 3 August 2010, is ultra vires Section 80IB(10)? - HELD THAT:- As on a comparison of the present and the earlier provisions in Section 80IB(10), it is apparent that there was no special benefit to housing projects carried out in accordance with the scheme framed by the Central or State Governments for reconstruction or redevelopment of existing buildings in areas declared to be slum areas under any law for the time being in force where such schemes were to be notified by the CBDT in this behalf. The benefit to such notified schemes for reconstruction or redevelopment of existing buildings in areas declared to be slum areas was introduced only with effect from 1 April 2005 and not earlier.
The proviso to clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (10) of Section 80IB of the IT Act entered force on 1 April 2005. The principal notification, however, had notified the scheme with which the Petitioners are concerned only with effect from 3 August 2010. Therefore, to align the principal notification with the date of coming into force of the proviso, the impugned corrigendum dated 5 January 2011 came to be issued.
The effect of the principal notification dated 3 August 2010, as corrected by the impugned notification dated 5 January 2011, is only to align the CBDT’s notification with the proviso to Section 80IB (10), which was brought into force by legislature prospectively, i.e. with effect from 1 April 2005. The provisions of 80IB (10), as they obtained before 1 April 2005, had made no special provisions regarding any slum redevelopment schemes. There is nothing in the Finance Act, 2004 or the provisions introduced by the said act to suggest or imply legislative intention to grant any retrospective effect. Therefore, the argument that the impugned notification is ultra vires cannot be sustained.
In this case, the legislature has expressly stated that the substituted Section 80-IB (10) would come into force from 01 April 2005.
Because some of the clauses encompass or refer to past events, that is not sufficient to hold that the amendment is retrospective. Mere reference to projects approved before 1 March 2004 in sub-clause (a) of Section 80 IB (10) cannot lead to the inference that the amendment is retrospective. We are satisfied that no case is made to declare the impugned notification ultra-vires or strike it down.
As impugned notification was valid and that the petitioner was not entitled to the claimed deductions u/s 80IB(10) due to non-compliance with the notification's conditions.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1126
Scope of amendments and the Explanations in Section 17 (2) (ii) of the IT Act - whether retrospective application of the amendments is permissible and constitutional? - definition of “perquisite” contained in Section 17 (2) of the IT Act - HELD THAT:- By introducing the impugned amendments, the legislature, apart from addressing the lacuna and shortcomings pointed out in the Court decisions, has provided consistency, clarity and uncertainty. These factors promote good tax governance. In fiscal matters or tax measure laws, it is well settled that the legislature enjoys far greater latitude than what may be permitted in non-fiscal legislation.
For all the above reasons, we see no force in the contention that the impugned amendments constitute an instance of impermissible judicial override or that the legislature has overruled the judicial precedents in Arun Kumar [2006 (9) TMI 115 - SUPREME COURT] or Officers’ Association, Bhilai Steel Plant [1980 (10) TMI 6 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT]
From 1 April 2006, the impugned amendment provides that a concession in the matter of rent shall be deemed provided at the specified rate by an employer to his employee by providing unfurnished employer-owned accommodation. The value of such concession in terms of Explanation 4 would be 15% of the salary in cities having a population exceeding twenty-five lakhs as per 2001 census; 10% of salary in cities having a population exceeding ten lakhs but not exceeding twenty-five lakhs as per 2001 census; and 7.5% of salary in any other place less the rent recoverable from or payable by the employee.
Thus, if for the period between 2002 to 2006, an employer were to have provided to his employee unfurnished employer-owned accommodation in a city having a population exceeding four lakhs as per the 1991 census and such employee had a monthly salary of Rs.1 lakh and was paying a monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/- towards such accommodation, then, the value of the concession for the purposes of Section 17 (2) (ii) had to be determined as the difference between 10% of such employee’s salary i.e. Rs. 10,000/- and the rental of Rs. 5,000/- which such employee was payable to the employer. This means that the value of the concession would be computed at Rs.5,000/-, the amount on which such an employee would be liable to pay tax.
Arguments about the scope of explanations and legal fiction -The arguments about the impugned amendments being inconsistent, repugnant and destructive of the main body of Section 17 (2) (ii) of the IT Act carry no force and cannot be accepted, as discussed earlier, the legislature creating legal fiction is a permissible legislative exercise. If such exercise is shown not to offend any constitutional provisions, there is no scope to interfere with such an exercise.
The following argument about the necessity of introducing an explanation without demonstrating that there was any ambiguity in Section 17 (2) (ii) of the IT Act also cannot be accepted. The purposes of introducing or adding an explanation to a Section can be manifold. The legislature has broad discretion in such matters.
The impugned amendments and the explanations introduced thereby cannot be struck down either because the legislature was incompetent to create a legal fiction, because such an explanation was unnecessary, because it destroyed the principal section, or because they were otherwise unconstitutional, ultra-vires, or null and void.
Retrospectivity of the impugned amendments - In the present case, however, we need not explore whether the Explanations inserted by the impugned amendments are clarificatory. This is because the issue of construction and determining retrospectivity arises when a legislature is either silent or ambiguous. Here, the legislature, has expressly provided a limited retrospective operation. There is nothing inherently wrong in providing for such a retrospective operation. Therefore, merely because a limited retrospectivity is granted to the impugned amendments, we cannot hold that the impugned amendments violate Article 14 of the Constitution or otherwise ultra-vires the constitutional provisions.
For all the above reasons, we find no force in the challenge based on the retrospectivity of the impugned amendments.
Amendments violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India - We see not much force in the challenges to the impugned amendments on the grounds of any breach of Article 14 of the Constitution or any other constitutional provisions.
Bank Submission - As it is too premature to decide whether the banks could be held to be “assesses in default” or made liable to pay any taxes on behalf of the employees. Therefore, we do not wish to make any observations on this issue. However, we clarify that if and when such issues arise, all parties' contentions regarding this issue are kept open. Such issues should be dealt with in accordance with law by all concerned.
Revenue authorities must consider that this Court had interdicted tax deductions at source through interim orders that operated during the pendency of some of these Petitions. The tax authorities must also consider the plight of the banks vis-a-vis its employees, most of whom must have retired by now. In any event, for the present, since such issues are yet to arise, we make no further observations on such matters, leaving all contentions of parties open.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1125
Addition u/s 68 - denial of exemption u/s 10(38) - penny stock used for generating bogus LTCG - Tribunal held that the AO made the addition solely on the ground that the scrips are in the stock whereas the assessee was able to demonstrate that the shares of the company in which the assessee has invested does not appear in the AIR report of the revenue which related to trading in penny stock
HELD THAT:- Tribunal found that the AO committed a mistake which is apparent on the face of the assessment order. Tribunal also noted that the assessee had submitted details to substantiate the claim and the transaction of the assessee was found to be not in the nature of speculation and the assessee has purchased scrips for long term holding.
Tribunal faulted the AO in not considering the voluminous information placed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings.
Tribunal also referred to the notice issued by the Bombay Stock Exchange dated 17.07.2016 wherein the trading in the company in question namely Wagend Infra Venture Limited resumed with effect from 15.7.2016 and this information made known in the notice issued by the Bombay Stock Exchange was not disputed by the revenue.
Tribunal on facts found that in case of the assessee’s father the long term capital gains on the sale of some scrips/shares was accepted by the department, and this was specifically noted by the CIT(A).
CIT(A) has elaborately considered the factual position and the voluminous documents and information furnished by the assessee and the same were re-appreciated by the Tribunal and the order passed by the CIT(A) was affirmed. No substantial question of law.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1124
Revision u/s 263 - Employees Stock Option Plan (‘ESOP’) expenses claimed by assessee - as per CIT(A) AO failed to conduct adequate inquiry and verification before allowing the ESOP expenses as a deduction.
Whether the deduction claimed by the assessee for the Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) expenses paid to its parent company, MakeMyTrip, Mauritius, was allowable under the Income Tax Act?
HELD THAT:- We noted that the assessee has filed information in regard to ESOP charges claimed as deduction while furnishing information before TPO i.e., copy of information and documents maintained in TP report u/s 92D(1) including Executive Summary of ESOP cross charges. The assessee in its TP report has disclosed the ESOP cross charges which is part of assessment record and TP report.
The assessee has filed entire details and AO has carried out enquiry into the details and after verifying the details he has allowed the claim of the assessee, and hence, it is not a case that the AO has not carried out verification or has not made in enquires in regard to this claim.
We noted that the shares of MakeMy Trip, Mauritius got listed on NASDAQ Stock Exchange w.e.f., 17/08/2010 and since that date the market price of MakeMy Trip, Mauritius are readily available on the stock exchange. We noted that that the assessee has accounted for all the entries related to ESOP in term of guidelines note provided by ICAI on accounting of employees shares based payments and assessee has carried out the accounting treatment skill in compliance with the same.
Assessee has undertaken ESOP costs as part of the salary and compensation under personnel expenses in the profit and loss account. Assessee has provided complete list of employees, as subscribed to these shares and their current employment status and benefit provided to them and consequent benefit to the assessee company.
Assessee also explained before the AO and now before us that the earning under ESOP accrues to eligible employees by virtue of their employment with the assessee company. The company benefits from the services of an enthused and motivated work force, who remain committed and loyal to the company in anticipation of potential benefits under ESOP.
Assessee has also provided valuation report for issuing such ESOP scheme and as per schedule reflected in Annexure-5 of the scheme the grant price of ESOPs during the year sum up to US$ 5,27,28 as per graded vesting schedule and corresponding amount of Rs. 2,41,51,868 has been booked in the audited financial statements and duly reflected in F. No.3CBE of assessee company for the Financial Year 2010-11 relevant to AY 2011-12.
The complete benefit, if any, share shall be derived by employee and consequent benefit to the company is described is entity. Hence, on merits also the PCIT could not find fault with the scheme. He has simply directed revision on the assessment order that no verification or enquiry was carried out by the AO.
Thus the revision order quashed and allowed the appeal of the assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1123
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 when proceedings u/s 154 were pending - As per the reasons recorded in the approval form, the reasons recorded therein are exactly similar to the reasons recorded in the notice issued u/s 154 proceedings - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that in the proceedings initiated u/s 154, the AO has not acted upon pending proceedings u/s 154, AO cannot initiate the proceedings u/s 148 which is beyond his jurisdiction. Two simultaneous proceedings cannot be initiated.
Respectfully following the decision of S.M. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [2022 (12) TMI 702 - SC ORDER] we are inclined to quash 148 proceedings as bad in law. Accordingly, ground is allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1122
Unexplained expenditure u/s 69C - bogus expenditure as no supporting bills for such payments made u/s 194C to non-filers were furnished before the AO - HELD THAT:- As on the basis of data available on the Departmental portal, list of non-filers was found to whom payment had been made but who had not filed their income tax returns.
Assessee was given the list of those non-filers, and the onus to prove the genuineness of transactions with them vide notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, but no reply was filed by the to the notice issued. Thus, it is not correct to state that the Ld. AO never asked for such details.
A perusal of the details of non-filers shows that heavy payments were made to one individual Shri Phulchand Sharma at Rs. 1,47,60,000/- and while the Ld. AO had invoked section 69C of the Act to make the addition, however, this was a case of the expenses not being verified and, therefore, the expenses claimed u/s 37(1) of the Act were liable to be disallowed as it could not be established in the absence of the vouchers that the expenditure was incurred for business purposes.
It has been held in the case of P.K. Palanisamy Vs. N Arumugham and another [2009 (7) TMI 1311 - SUPREME COURT] that it is a well settled principle of law that mentioning of wrong provision or non-mentioning of provision does not invalidate an order if the court and/or statutory authority had the requisite jurisdiction therefore.
Even though the provisions of section 69C of the Act were not applicable, however since the primary evidence for the expenditure claimed was not produced before the Ld. AO, nor the same could be produced before the Bench, therefore, some disallowance was called for on account of expenditure not being supported by vouchers.
Hence, it is considered appropriate to sustain the addition to the extent of 10% of the expenses disallowed by the Ld. AO for non-maintenance of the vouchers which was conveyed to the Ld. AR.
Thus, addition being 10% of the disallowed amount is hereby sustained and the rest of the addition is directed to be deleted. Hence, Ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal are partly allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1121
Denial of exemption u/s 11 - non-filing of Form 10B along with return of income - directory v/s mandatory provision - HELD THAT:- Filing of Form 10B is directory to facilitate the assessment and not mandatory. The assessee is running charitable trust and carried on charitable activities over the years, mere non-filing of Form 10B which is directory in nature cannot be the reason to deny the benefit extended by the statute, therefore, we are inclined to allow the claim of the assessee by relying on the findings in Green Dot Health Foods Pvt. Ltd. [2023 (2) TMI 516 - ITAT DELHI] - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1120
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Addition u/s 68 - unexplained credits regarding share application money - HELD THAT:- AO observed that based on the information from Central Circle with regard to obtaining accommodation entries from MARRASS Industries Ltd. reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment and, it shows that he reopened the assessment after lapse of four years.
On careful consideration of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, the AO has not discussed or hinted on the aspect for failure on the part of the assessee particularly when provisions of section 147 (1) was attracted in this case.
Since original assessment order was already passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and after due verification of the transaction, AO allowed the same by accepting the same after verification of various documents submitted before him.
CIT (A) sought for the assessment records in order to verify the above submissions of the assessee, however no records were traceable at that point of time.
Since the assessee has submitted relevant information with regard to submission of various informations relating to receipt of share application money.
Since the issue involved is application of provisions to section 147(1) of the Act, non-recording of failure on the part of the assessee in the reasons recorded shows that the reopening of assessment is only change of opinion and also beyond jurisdiction and at this juncture, we do not see any reason to disturb the findings of the CIT (A). Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1119
Penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) - Scrutiny assessment - Addition towards unexplained cash credits in the capital accounts of the partners - HELD THAT:- For Unexplained cash credit in the partners’ capital account as the assessee firm as per the mandate of “Explanation-1” of Section 271(1)(c) had failed to come forth with any explanation as regards the aforesaid credits in its books of accounts, therefore, it was liable to be saddled with penalty under the aforesaid statutory provision. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(A) who had rightly saddled the assessee firm with penalty on the aforesaid addition made u/s. 68 of the Act, uphold the same.
Addition to the business income - Although the assessee firm on being confronted with the aforesaid fact in the course of the quantum appeal before the CIT(A), had stated that the said infirmity was on account of an inadvertent omission, but we are unable to persuade ourselves to concur with the same.
As the assessee firm had failed to come forth with any plausible explanation for having suppressed/understated the “net profit” in its return of income, therefore, as observed by the CIT(Appeals) and, rightly so, it was liable to be saddled with penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(Appeals) who had rightly saddled the assessee firm with penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the aforementioned amount of understated/suppressed “net profit " uphold the same.
Deduction of expenses of FBT, donation and prior period expenses - There is nothing available on record which would substantiate the genuineness of the aforesaid expenses, which the assessee had admitted before the CIT(Appeals) as inadmissible, therefore, the same is nothing short of raising of a false/wrong claim of deduction. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, find no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(Appeals) who had rightly imposed penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on the assessee firm for raising a wrong claim of deduction of expenses.
Decided against assessee.
............
|
9911796707
