Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2018 2018 (10) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition 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-- 2025 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 >= 2 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 421 to 440 of 2046 Records

• 2018 (10) TMI 1629
  

  TPA - international transaction during the year as defined u/s 92B - adjustment pertains to purchase of Lipholiser machine - Held that:- This Lipholiser was never put to use by Dabur UK and the same was in absolutely new condition. It was also highlighted by the assessee that the custom authorities had not disputed the declared import price of the machine. The claim of the Lipholiser having not been put to use in UK was also supported by a certificate from the UK based Chartered Accountant and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has accepted the same after calling for comments from the AO

  Although the department has argued at length against the action of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) in deleting transfer pricing adjustment with regard to the import of Lipholiser machine, no defect could be pointed out in the documents which had been relied upon by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) while deleting the adjustment. The department also does not have any comparative case to support its stand on the issue and, therefore, it is our considered opinion that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) took a reasoned and logical view of the whole issue by placing reliance on the various evidences which had been accepted by him as additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. - Decided against revenue

  Transfer pricing adjustment which pertains to sale of Paclitaxel drug and Disodium Pamidronate - Held that:- CIT(A), while allowing relief to the assessee, has noted that no comparison had been done by the TPO in relation to the sale of Paclitaxel and Disodium Pamidronate with uncontrolled transaction. Also observed that a mere price comparison of uncontrolled transaction of assessee with another uncontrolled transaction as taken from data base was a gross error as far as the application of CUP method was to be considered. TPO has used the data base of export rates maintained by IBIS which do not satisfy stringent condition of comparability regarding CUP method. The assessee was able to demonstrate that by applying TNMM that its margin was better than those of the comparable companies

  Although the department has vehemently argued against the deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment in this regard, no factual or legal infirmity in the finding so arrived at by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) could be pointed out. Accordingly, in view of the facts of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) on this issue also and we dismiss the ground raised by the department in this regard.- Decided against revenue

  TPA pertaining to MCS (Methylene Chloride Soluble Extract) from its Associated Enterprise Dabur Nepal - Held that:- Commissioner of Income Tax (A) noted that the cost price per kg as per Cost Certificate was ₹ 4648 per kg as compared to the price of ₹ 32 per kg which was taken by the TPO for computing proposed adjustment. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) also noted that the TPO had not provided any material on the basis of which the price of ₹ 32 per kg was to be supported whereas the assessee had justified the ALP by usage of TNMM method. Thus, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) found the working and data of the assessee more reliable than the working of the TPO in this regard and thereafter proceeded to allow relief to the assessee.

  Although the Department has argued vehemently against the action of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) in this regard, it remains undisputed that the provision for applying CUP require strict compliance and the same was not done by the TPO. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) on this issue also - Decided against revenue

  Corporate Guarantee given to ABN AMRO Bank for Foreign AEs and interest on loan - Held that:- We do not fully agree with the findings of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) in this regard that the benefit of interest saving of 1% should be shared between the AE and the assessee equally as no cogent reasoning has been given for the same and, accordingly, we deem it fit to modify the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) in this regard to the extent that corporate guarantee fee @1% should be applied in the case of the assessee in place of 0.5% as has been applied by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A). We accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to re-compute the ALP for corporate guarantee fee @1%.

  TPA pertaining to interest on loan Commissioner of Income Tax (A) held that interest of both the loans was to be charged at LIBOR plus1.5%. We also note that the Ld. DRP for immediately preceding assessment year 2006-07 has held that the foreign loan given to UK subsidiary was to be benchmarked at LIBOR plus 100 bps plus certain risk adjustment and accordingly, rate of LIBOR plus 300 bps was proposed by the Ld. DRP. Although the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has duly made a mention of this direction of the Ld. DRP for assessment year 2006-07, it is apparent that he has not considered the directions of the Ld. DRP while deciding this issue. We also note that the assessee has not filed any appeal against this direction of the Ld. DRP for assessment year 2006-07. Accordingly, in view of the factual matrix, this issue needs to be restored to the file of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) to be decided afresh

  Disallowance reducing the WDV of assets by the amount of subsidy received from the West Bengal Government - Held that:- Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has noted that he has examined the documents relating to West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2000 and that further this subsidy is a one-time receipt. It has also been mentioned that nowhere on the perusal of the documents it was found that the subsidy was to be related to the reduction of the cost of fixed assets and, further the recipient of the subsidy was free to use the subsidy in any manner. We find that an identical issue had arisen in Bhagwati Sponge (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2016 (7) TMI 608 - ITAT KOLKATA] and the co-ordinate Bench held that the capital investment subsidy received from state government could not be reduced from the cost of capital asset for allowing depreciation - decided against revenue

  ---

• 2018 (10) TMI 1628
  

  Refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit - Affidavit filed by the Department for grant of refund - Held that:- The appeal of the appellant stands allowed in the same terms as in the case of Molex India Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (3) TMI 294 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] - The refund should be released forthwith.

  ---

• 2018 (10) TMI 1627
  

  Refund of Education Cess - N/N. 39/2001-CE - Held that:- Hon’ble Supreme Court in SRD Nutrients (P) Ltd. [2017 (11) TMI 655 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] considering the very same issue particularly on the area based exemption notification held that Education Cess being a duty of excise is exempted under area based exemption notification - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (10) TMI 1626
  

  Reopening of assessment - addition on account of transfer of profits under Client Code Modification by brokers in respect of transactions carried out on National Stock Exchange (NSE) - AO also made an addition on account of commission @ 2% on the said amount - Held that:- Once the notice U/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer as it is part of the assessment record then we do not find any defect or illegality in the reassessment order so far as the requirement of notice U/s 143(2) of the Act is concerned. Hence, we set aside the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) qua this issue. This ground of revenue’s appeal is allowed.

  The stock exchange has accepted the reasonable error margin up to 5% and undisputedly in the case of the assessee, the error and rectification of the same by using the Client Code Modification constitute only 0.47%, therefore, the percentage of trade which are rectified are not only within the range but it is on lower side of the range of error margin acceptable in such transactions. The case in hand, it was only 0.47%, therefore, there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the Client Code Modification done by the broker in the transactions where after the execution of the trade, the broker has carried out the correction of mistakes. A similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in the series of decisions thus in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and following the decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunals, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) qua this issue. Hence, both these grounds of revenue’s appeal are dismissed.

  Reopening of assessment - borrowed satisfaction - Held that:- As relying on SHODIMAN INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., [2018 (4) TMI 1287 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Reopening of the assessment based on the report of DIT (Inv) is not valid when the case is hit by the proviso to Section 147 of the Act. It is pertinent to note that the assessee is not expected to disclose the fact that he has indulged in transaction of fictitious transfer of profits but what is required to be disclosed is the transactions carried out by the assessee thorugh the broker. Hence, once the transactions carried out by the assessee are matter of record then the case does not fall in the category of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. The assessee is not supposed to do what ought to have been done by the Assessing Officer during the scrutiny assessment. Accordingly, the reopening is bad in law and liable to be quashed.

  ---

• 2018 (10) TMI 1625
  

  Assessment u/s.153A - Addition of unsecured loans u/s.68 - Held that:- It is the claim of the assessee that the transactions entered into by such names of persons can be partly genuine when it comes to “unsecured loans” and partly bogus when it comes to “investment in shares”. This aspect was not properly examined by the CIT(A) applying the strict tests while adjudicating the issue and while granting part relief to the assessee. This is the case of Revenue, when it comes to the unsecured loans, that the relief was liberally granted by the CIT(A) without scrutinizing the loan transactions properly. As examined the documentation filed by the assessee with regard to the correctness of the transactions of loan creditors. We find “all is not well” with the documentation qua the creditworthiness, signatures on the confirmations, PANs etc. It is not justified as to why the creditors failed to give their signatures on the confirmation letters. It is the prayer of both the authorities before us that this entire issue may be remanded to the file of AO for want of one more round of adjudication at the level of the assessing authorities - entire issue of unsecured loans raised in all the appeals is required to be remanded to the file of AO.

  Addition on account of agricultural income - Held that:- Considering the adhocism involved in this matter, we find the average of all the above comes very close to the decision of 65% as held by the CIT(A) in his order. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the decision of CIT(A) is appropriate and it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the relevant grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

  Unexplained expenditure on account of Elections - Held that:- The matter stands remanded to the file of AO for examination of the facts and for want of a fresh order on this issue. AO is directed to decide the issue in the light of the seized papers on one side and the order of ITSC, disclosures made by the family members, on the other side giving effect to the same after hearing the assessee. AO shall note that order of settlement of ITSC is binding on the Income-tax authorities and not on the Tribunal. With these directions, this entire issue of unexplained expenditure on elections stands remanded to the file of AO for fresh adjudication and for passing a speaking order.

  Unexplained investment in land - as admitted that the assessee paid ₹ 10 lakhs as loan to Srusti Sangam and the same remained unpaid - Held that:- For allowing the bad debt, there is need for fulfilling certain conditions by the assessee. It has to be examined if the assessee is a financier and is regularly engaged in the business of money lending/financing activities. This aspect was not examined by the lower authorities before rejecting the claim of the assessee. There is also need for examining the debtor and the reasons for not returning the said payment of ₹ 10 lakhs. Therefore, considering the peculiarity of these facts, we are of the opinion that this issue should also be remanded to the file of AO with a direction to examine the status of the assessee if he is engaged in the business of money lending and circumstances on the debtor for not returning the amount to the lender.

  Unexplained investment in FDRs - Held that:- We find the source of income for making the FDs worth of ₹ 2,30,970/- is the core issue under litigation. It is the case of the assessee that the source for the same is the proceeds received by the assessee on maturity of the earlier FDs. There is need for furnishing the cash flow of the matured FDs which form part of the new FDs of ₹ 2,30,970/-. It is an admitted fact before us that the assessee offered only an amount of ₹ 79,771/- as additional income for taxation and not the entire addition of ₹ 2,30,970/-. However, Ld. AR firmly submitted that the entire FDs of ₹ 2,30,970/- is explainable if time is granted before the AO. In our view, this matter needs examination in the light of the details of the cash flow. - Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

  ---

• 2018 (10) TMI 1624
  

  Resolution Professional constituting interim Monitoring Committee - Held that:- This counsel has filed a memo appending this e-mail correspondence reflecting 2nd Respondent conceding the lenders of the Corporate Debtor to release the payments towards various requirements of the company as mentioned in the e-mail sent by Mr. Ramalingappa, SBI official on 28th September, 2018.

  Though 2nd Respondent was required to take initiative to constitute Monitoring Committee in consultation with the COC members, the same not having happened, we are of the view that some immediate Steps have to be taken so as to let this company continue as going concern at least until further steps are being taken by the Resolution Applicant.

  So far the interest of the Financial Creditors has not been cleared by the Resolution Applicant, we hereby suggest the Resolution Professional to constitute interim Monitoring Committee with the officials Of State Bank of India, Union Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, Allahabad Bank and Andhra Bank, thereafter the Resolution Professional shall discharge the functions of the Corporate Debtor as per the instructions of the Monitoring Committee until further orders.

  ---

• 2018 (10) TMI 1623
  

  Classification of an item - Militry Malai Mithai - whether classified under the Tariff Heading 2106 as Sweet Meats or under Tariff Heading 0404 as other dairy product consisting of natural milk constituents or under the Tariff Heading 1704 as a Sugar confectionery?

  Held that:- Applicant’s reservations against Chapter Head 1704 are driven, among other things, by financial grounds. Because, against Chapter Head 1704 they would have to cough up GST @18%. We also sense a similar but tacit approach from the department to maintain the status quo by placing the impugned product under Chapter 17 with an eye on higher rate of tax that is attracts - however, the endeavour of the department should be to decide appropriate classification irrespective of the rate of tax attached to it.

  Chapter 04 essentially covers dairy products and as per Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 04, the heading 0404 applies interalia to products consisting of natural milk constituents whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or flavoured or containing added fruit or cocoa. Now while chapter head 0401 to 0406 are meant for natural dairy products viz. Milk, Cheese, Butter Milk, Butter, Whey etc. and other products made out of such items, the product in question i.e. Militry Malai Mithai contains Skimmed Milk Powder, Whey Powder, Sugar, Emulsifiers etc. as predominant ingredients, which would not make it entitles to be classified as a product of natural milk constituents as has been pleaded by the Applicant. By no stretch of imagination, the product in question can be brought under the ambit of Chpater 04 of the HSN - classification of the impugned product under Chapter 04 of the I-ISN is ruled out.

  Fitment of impugned product under Chapter 1704 - Held that:- The product ‘Militry Malai Mithai’ cannot be terms as ‘Chewing Gum’ (1704 10 00) or Jelly Confectionery (1704 90 10) or Boiled Sweet (1704 90 20) or Toffee, caramel etc (1704 90 30). Clearly the product is neither a gum nor boiled sweet nor toffee or caramel. That leaves residual entry ‘Others’ (1704 90 90) if at all the impugned product is to brought under the purview of Chapter 17. In other words, there is no specific entry under Chapter 17 which would encompass the impugned product even by a remote chance. Moreover, the residual entry i.e ‘Others’ (1704 90 90) is to take care of other similar products of the same family viz. Sugar Confectionery which do not find specific mention against rest of the sub-headings.

  The impugned product i.e. ‘Militry Malai Mithai’ is made of Skimmed Milk Powder, Sugar, Whey Powder, Emulsifiers & flavours etc. mixed together in a semi-liquid form (neither semi-solid nor in the form of Jelly) and packed in elongated pouches/sachets and ready for consumption. The ingredients, process and final shape of the impugned product takes itself out of the family of Sugar Confectionery in any form - the impugned product cannot be termed and classified as Sugar Confectionery under Chapter 17 of the GST Tariff.

  The product in question i.e. ‘Militry Malai Mithai’ is a product made out of Skimmed Milk Powder, Sugar & Whey Powder as main ingredients with Emulsifiers etc. put up in small sachet/pouch in semi-liquid (paste) consistency, ready for consumption. The product cannot be termed as Dairy Product or Sugar Confectionery - there is no doubt that being edible preparation, manufactured under due license issued by concerned Government authorities, it would merit classification under Chapter 21 i.e. ‘Miscellaneous Edible Products’. Once the chapter is decided, a careful examination of different entries under Chapter 21, the quest for appropriate classification rests finally at 2106 90 99, the residual entry, as the product itself does not find specific place anywhere else in the Chapter 21 - the impugned product viz. ‘Militry Malai Mithai’ would merit classification as Miscellaneous Edible Product under Chapter Heading 2106 90 99, as ‘Sweetmeat’ and chargeable to GST as applicable.

  The impugned goods shall be aptly classifiable under Chapter Head 2106 90 99 as ‘Sweetmeats’ and shall be entitled to benefit of Notification No.01/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dtd.28.06.2017 (as amended) and corresponding notification under MPGST Act,2017 at present attracting GST @5% Adv. [(2.5% CGST + 2.5% SGST) or 5% IGST as the case may be) as envisaged under Serial Number 101 Schedule I to the said Notification.

  Ruling:- The product ‘Militry Malai Mithai’ as described in the Application will merit classification under Chapter Heading 2106 90 of the GST Tariff as ‘Sweetmeat’ and would be chargeable to GST at applicable rate under the said tariff entry, presently read with Notification No.01/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dtd.28.06.2017 (Sr. No. 101 to Schedule l) and corresponding notification under MPGST Act,2017.

  ---

• 2018 (10) TMI 1622
  

  Validity of seizure order - Section 67(2) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - apart from directing for the deposit of the Central G.S.T., State G.S.T. and penalty under both the Acts, an equivalent amount of fine has also been imposed under both the Acts - Held that:- The imposition of penalty and fine simultaneously amounts to double jeopardy and that the interest of the petitioner be protected by releasing deemed reasonable conditions which were deemed proper by the court.

  We direct the Standing Counsel as well as counsel for the Tax Department to seek instructions and file counter affidavit within a month. Two weeks thereafter are allowed to the petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit.

  ---

• 2018 (10) TMI 1621
  

  Release of detained goods - delayed submission of E-Way bill - Held that:- E-way bill could not be down loaded but it was subsequently produced after down loading it on 24.10.2018 which is valid upto 2nd November 2018.

  It is directed for the release of the goods of the petitioner and the vehicle on deposit of the proposed amount of tax of ₹ 28,000/- and ₹ 25,000/- towards penalty - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2018 (10) TMI 1620
  

  Rectification of form TRAN-1 filed under Section 140 of the Goods and Service Tax, 2017 - incorrect figures of Cenvat Credit keyed in - Held that:- Petitioners would have to file representation to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC). This representation would be considered by the CBIC for verification and the bona fides of the claim made by the Petitioners. If satisfied, Petitioners would be allowed to amend the Trans-I form to reflect the correct amount of credit available - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2018 (10) TMI 1619
  

  Interest on delayed refund - tax paid in respect of exported goods - section 16 of IGST Act - mismatch of invoices - Held that:- The Respondents state that there is an Invoices mismatch in respect of the refund sought. Thus, leading to delay in passing the refund. This is disputed by the Petitioner. Besides, the Circulars and FAQ mentioned, inter alia, deal with grant of refund in spite of Invoices mismatch/ error, as indicated by SB005. The above Circular/ FAQ does not deal with grant of interest even for the period when there Invoice mismatched/ error. Thus, the Circular/FAQ does not decide the issue, but would require deeper consideration.

  The issue of grant of interest for delaying refund does requires factual determination as to the type of Invoices mismatch, who was responsible for the same and who, if any, and how, was the same corrected. This exercise would be best done by the adjudicating authorities under the Act after hearing the parties - petition allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2018 (10) TMI 1618
  

  Extension of date for uploading Form Tran-1 and Form Tran-2 - issuance of N/N. 48/2018 – Central Tax, New Delhi dated 10.09.2018 - Held that:- In view of the notification admittedly, the petitioner has an opportunity to upload its FORM GST TRAN-1 and FORM GST TRAN-2 at Annexures-G and H of the Writ Petition on the official website of the GST Council on or before 31.03.2019, and therefore, to this extent the relief prayed for in this writ petition stands granted by the GST Department extending the period for submitting the declaration upto 31.03.2019.

  The present writ petition is disposed of as infructuous, with a liberty and direction to the petitioner-assessee to upload the said FORM GST TRAN-1 and FORM GST TRAN-2 on the official website of the GST Council on or before 31.03.2019 - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2018 (10) TMI 1617
  

  Input tax credit - transitional credit - transition to GST Regime - Distribution of input credit amongst its branch offices/locations which have separate registration under the Act - Section 140(8) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Held that:- The Petitioners are entitled to distribute the Input Credit available with it as on 1st July 2017 amongst its branches/locations. This distribution has not been possible on account of technical problems of the Respondents. Further the availment of input tax credit available on 1st July 2017 has to be done on or before 20th October 2018 in view of Section 16(4) of the Act. Thus, it is likely that the Petitioners may be deprived of the facility of the input tax credit available with it on 1st July 2017, if the same is not taken before 20th October 2018.

  The Respondents have extended the time to file TRANS­1 and TRANS­2, but no such extension has been granted to extend the time to file GSTR­3B - thus, pending the final disposal of the Petition (when these issues will be considered in greater depth), as the system is not accepting it, the Petitioners would manually file with the Respondents a copy of its revised TRANS­1, ITC­01 and also GSTR­3B at Mumbai (in physical form).

  On the basis of the revised TRANS­1, ITC­02 and the GSTR­3B at Mumbai (to be certified by the Commissioner at Mumbai), the Petitioners will be entitled to take the credit reduced at Mumbai (Maharashtra) to its locations in Delhi, Gujarat and Karnataka subject to the satisfaction of the Commissioner having jurisdiction over those locations - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2018 (10) TMI 1616
  

  Unable to form upload TRANS-1 - migration to GST Regime - transitional credit - Held that:- The petitioner-company is therefore relegated before the concerned Nodal Officer (Commissioner) at Bengaluru, before whom the representations already filed by the petitioners-company or which may be now filed afresh with the relevant evidence will be decided by the said Nodal Officer and all the issues relating to administration and technical difficulties faced by the petitioner as raised in the writ petitions will be decided on merits - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2018 (10) TMI 1615
  

  Profiteering - restaurant service - benefit of reduction of tax from 18% to 5% not passed to customers - it was also alleged that Respondent was illegally profiteering by appropriating the amount of reduction of tax by fleecing the poor customers as he was denying them the benefit of reduction - Held that:- The investigation conducted in the matter by the Applicant No. 2 against the Respondent No. 1 could not establish profiteering for want of credible evidence and hence no violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act 2017 could be established - there are no violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - application dismissed.

  ---

• 2018 (10) TMI 1614
  

  Profiteering - benefit of reduction in the GST rates not passed to customers - Amway Business Owners (ABOs) - Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 - Held that:- The Applicant No. 1 had not supplied details of the products or the invoices vide which he had bought them from the Respondent inspite of repeated requests made by the Applicant No. 2 and therefore, the investigation conducted in the allegation levelled by the Applicant No. 2 against the Respondent could not establish profiteering for want of cogent and reliable evidence and hence no violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act 2017 has been found in this case - There are no violation of provisions - application dismissed.

  ---

• 2018 (10) TMI 1613
  

  Disallowance of non-compete fees - Disallowance of marketing know how - Disallowance of depreciation on Royalty payments - Interest charged u/s 234B and 234C while computing income u/s 115JB - Held that:- Since the tax effect is more than Rs. one crore, let the matter be listed in due course.

  ---

• 2018 (10) TMI 1612
  
  The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition in the case. The citation is 2018 (10) TMI 1612 - SC Order. Justices Nariman and Sinha were presiding. Petitioner represented by Mr. Yasobant Das, Dr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, Mr. B.B. Pradhan, and Mr. M.A. Aleem Majid.

  ---

• 2018 (10) TMI 1611
  
  The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions after condoning the delay. Pending applications were disposed of.

  ---

• 2018 (10) TMI 1610
  

  Reopening of assessment - deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e) - Held that:- In absence of any scrutiny on this issue in the original assessment, the Asesssing Officer cannot be estopped from examining this question provided, of course, that he had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. In this context, he had cited reasons why, prima facie, applicability of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act arises. It would be for the assessee to contest the additions during the course of assessment proceedings.

  As is well settled, at the stage of Notice for reassessment, the Assessing Officer only has to demonstrate formation of a reasonable belief on the basis of the material on record that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. He does not have to establish beyond dispute that invariably, the addition would be made. The scrutiny of the Court, at that stage also, is limited.

  The petitioner’s contention that even if he may be holding more than 10% of the shares of the Company, he did not have less than 10% voting rights, can be examined in the assessment proceedings, for which, we are not inclined to quash the Notice itself. - Decided against assessee.

  ---

1 ....181920212223242526........ 103