|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 421 to 440 of 1551 Records
-
2024 (2) TMI 1131
Classification of services - activity for laying of pipe line for irrigation projects - Erection, commissioning and installation services or not - time limitation - HELD THAT:- Since, it is undisputed that the activity under taken by the appellant is laying of pipeline for irrigation projects for the period involved under a composite contract, and the show cause notice also demands service tax under ‘erection, commissioning and installation charges’, we find that the entire demand needs to be set aside as unsustainable. It is noted that similar issue came up before the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/S. LANCO INFRATECH LTD. AND OTHERS VERSUS VERSUS CC, CE & ST, HYDERABAD [2015 (5) TMI 37 - CESTAT BANGALORE (LB)] and the Larger Bench, after considering the various decisions and the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 held that Where under an agreement, whether termed as works contract, turnkey or EPC, the principal contractor, in terms of the agreement with the employer/ contractee, assigns the works to a sub-contractor and the transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of such works passes on accretion to or incorporation into the works on the property belonging to the employer/ contractee, the principal contractor cannot be considered to have provided the taxable (works contract) service enumerated and defined in Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Act.
The above reproduced Larger Bench ratio would squarely cover the issue in favour of the appellant in the case in hand. Accordingly, the entire demand which has been raised by the show cause notice is liable to be set aside.
There are strong force in the contentions raised by the Learned Counsel that prior to 01.06.2007 the demand on the appellant cannot be sustained in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. VERSUS LARSEN & TOURBO LTD. & ORS. [2008 (8) TMI 21 - SUPREME COURT], as it is the admitted fact that contracts which are awarded to the appellant are for supply, erection & commissioning of various irrigation projects. That would mean that the entire contract is a works contract.
The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1130
Agony of trial - Forgery of the passport application - whether a prima facie case, to subject the Appellants to the agony of trial, has been made out - Whether the actions of the Appellants prima facie constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC? - Whether there has been a prima facie case made out for forgery under Sections 468 and 471 IPC? - Whether there has been a violation of Section 12(b) of the Passports Act, 1967?
The offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC - HELD THAT:- The background of this case and the chronology of events squarely indicate that it is the touchstone of a marital dispute. The insinuations made by Respondent No. 2, even if they possess an iota of truth, have miserably failed to prima facie establish the elements of ‘cheating’ and thus, the accusation made against the Appellants under Section 420 IPC must fall flat.
The offence of forgery under Sections 468 and 471 IPC - HELD THAT:- The offences of ‘forgery’ and ‘cheating’ intersect and converge, as the act of forgery is committed with the intent to deceive or cheat an individual. Having extensively addressed the aspect of dishonest intent in the context of ‘cheating’ under Section 420 IPC, it stands established that no dishonest intent can be made out against the Appellants. Our focus therefore will now be confined, for the sake of brevity, to the first element, i.e., the preparation of a false document. The determination of whether the Appellants prepared a false document, by forging Respondent No. 2’s signature, however, cannot be even prima facie ascertained at this juncture - It is also significant to highlight that the proceedings as against the concerned Passport Officer, who was implicated as Accused No. 4, already stand quashed. In such like situation and coupled with the nature of allegations, it cannot be appreciated as to why the Appellants be subjected to the ordeal of trial.
Questions overlooked by the lower courts - HELD THAT:- The Trial Magistrate should have approached the complaint with due care and circumspection, recognising that the allegations do not pertain to offences against property or documents related to property marks. Instead of wielding judicial authority against the Appellants, the Trial Magistrate should have exercised prudence, making at least a cursory effort to discern the actual ‘victim’ or ‘victimiser’. The failure to do so is both fallible and atrocious - The sum and substance of the above discussion is that the elementary ingredients of ‘cheating’ and ‘forgery’ are conspicuously missing. Thus, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the Appellants is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
In the context of Section 12(b) of the Passports Act, 1967 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it is crucial to consider that the State FSL report explicitly stated that the alleged forgery of Respondent No. 2’s signatures on the passport application was inconclusive. Moreover, the cognizance of such like offence can be taken only at the instance of the Prescribed Authority. No complaint to that effect has been disclosed against the Appellants. This Court, therefore, will exercise caution before invoking such severe offences and penalties solely on the basis of conjectures and surmises.
The conduct exhibited by Respondent No. 2 - HELD THAT:- The Appellants were unnecessarily implicated and dragged into criminal proceedings, thereby causing undue hardship to them. These instances shed light on Respondent No. 2’s conduct preceding the initiation of the present proceedings and provide insight into his motivations for instigating the same - It is undeniable that despite the evident discord between the Appellants and Respondent No. 2, resulting in numerous complaints and legal proceedings, the issue at hand has adversely impacted the rights and interests of the minor child. The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right of an individual, albeit not absolute, and subject to established legal procedures.
The impugned judgment of the High Court dated 18.02.2021, and that of the Trial Magistrate dated 15.03.2018, are hereby set aside - Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1129
Validity of assessment order and bank attachment order - Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed of by the petitioner was reversed on the ground that three suppliers had issued credit notes to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The admitted position is that the entire demand under the assessment order of Rs. 2,82,760/- was satisfied by way of the remittance made by the bank to the tax department. Consequently, revenue interest is fully protected at this juncture. If the contention of the petitioner that no supplies were effected by Abhishek Steel Industries Limited is found to be correct, the reversal of ITC to that extent may warrant revision. Solely for this reason, the impugned order calls for interference.
The impugned assessment order dated 11.08.2023 is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration by the first respondent. The petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice dated 11.07.2023 within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1128
Levy of penalty - no E-Way Bill, invoice and bilty were present in the vehicle carrying the goods - onus to prove (shifting burden) - burden of proof with regard to intention to evade tax shifts from the Department to the assessee - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the facts are undisputed that neither invoice nor E-Way Bill were accompanying the goods. Such a contravention to the Rules cannot be treated to be a mere technical or typographical mistake, and accordingly, in such cases, the burden of proof for establishing that there was no mens rea for evasion of taxes shifts to the assessee - This Court in umpteen cases where penalties were being imposed under Section 129 of the Act though held that an intention to evade tax should be present, however, in the event the goods are not accompanied by the invoice or the e-way bill, a presumption may be raised that there is an intention to evade tax. Such a presumption of evasion of tax then becomes rebuttable by the materials to be provided by the owner/transporter of the goods.
In the present case, one comes to an inexorable conclusion that the petitioner has not been able to rebut the presumption of evasion of taxes, as he has not been able to explain the absence of invoice and the E-Way Bill. Production of these documents subsequent to the interception cannot absolve the petitioner from the liability of penalty as the very purpose of imposing penalty is to act as a deterrent to persons who intend to avoid paying taxes owed to the Government. It is clear that if the goods had not been intercepted, the Government would have been out of its pocket with respect to the GST payable on the said goods.
Thus, no interference is required with regard to the impugned orders - petition dismissed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1127
Input Tax Credit - credit claimed and availed of by the petitioner under the TNVAT Act held to be wrongly availed - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has placed on record the reply dated 01.12.2020, which bears the signature of the recepient and is dated 02.12.2020. The said communication refers to three refund orders, specifies the order numbers and the corresponding refund amounts. The communication also records that copies of the refund orders are enclosed with the communication. In these facts and circumstances, the interest of justice warrants that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to place these documents for the consideration of the assessing officer. Solely for that reason, the order impugned herein calls for interference.
The impugned order dated 29.12.2023 is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. The petitioner shall submit all relevant documents to the assessing officer within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1126
Validity of separate assessment orders - ITC claim rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner had not claimed ITC in the GSTR-3B returns - HELD THAT:- When the registered person asserts that he is eligible for ITC by referring to GSTR-2A and GSTR-9 returns, the assessing officer should examine whether the ITC claim is valid by examining all relevant documents, including by calling upon the registered person to provide such documents. In this case, it appears that the claim was rejected entirely on the ground that the GSTR-3B returns did not reflect the ITC claim. Therefore, interference is warranted with the orders impugned herein.
The orders impugned herein are quashed and these matters are remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to place all documents pertaining to its ITC claims before the assessing officer within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1125
Seeking grant of Anticipatory bail - availing and utilizing fraudulent ITC on the basis of the fake tax invoice, without receiving the goods or services or both - petitioner has joined in the investigation and is neither required for further investigation nor for any custodial interrogation - HELD THAT:- Keeping in view of the fact that the petitioner had joined the investigation consequent to the orders dated 21.04.2022 and 14.12.2022 passed by this Court, interim bail granted vide orders dated 21.04.2022 and 14.12.2022 is hereby confirmed, subject to conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) CrPC.
Further the petitioner is directed to join investigation as and when required in future by way of written notice for such purpose to be served by Investigating Officer of this case upon the petitioner; he will not tamper with the evidence nor will influence the witnesses and will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1124
Violation of principles of natural justice - personal hearing was not provided to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- Section 75(4) of the Tamil Nadu State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 mandates that a personal hearing be given either if such hearing is requested for or if an order adverse to the assessee is proposed to be issued. In the case at hand, by reply dated 24.10.2023, the petitioner expressly requested for a personal hearing. Such personal hearing was not granted. As pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, several findings were recorded in the impugned assessment order on the ground that the petitioner did not provide supporting documents.
The matter is remanded for reconsideration. The assessing officer is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, take into account documents produced by the petitioner and, thereafter, issue a fresh assessment order - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1123
Cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner with retrospective effect - notice does not specify any cogent reason, and merely states “others” - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In terms of Section 29(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the proper officer may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit if the circumstances set out in the said sub-section are satisfied. The registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically. It can be cancelled only if the proper officer deems it fit to do so. Such satisfaction cannot be subjective but must be based on some objective criteria.
It is important to note that, according to the respondent, one of the consequences for cancelling a tax payer’s registration with retrospective effect is that the taxpayer’s customers are denied the input tax credit availed in respect of the supplies made by the tax payer during such period. Although, we do not consider it apposite to examine this aspect but assuming that the respondent’s contention in this regard is correct, it would follow that the proper officer is also required to consider this aspect while passing any order for cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect. Thus, a taxpayer’s registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted - Further, there is no reasoning in the said show cause notice and in the impugned order as to why the cancellation has been done retrospectively.
The impugned show cause notice dated 20.07.2023, order of cancellation dated 02.08.2023 are accordingly set aside. GST registration of the petitioner is restored - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1122
Cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner with retrospective effect - SCN does not specify any cogent reason, and merely states not filed returns for a continuous period of six months - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In terms of Section 29(2) of the Act, the proper officer may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit if the circumstances set out in the said sub-section are satisfied. Registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically. It can be cancelled only if the proper officer deems it fit to do so. Such satisfaction cannot be subjective but must be based on some objective criteria. Merely, because a taxpayer has not filed the returns for some period does not mean that the taxpayer’s registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when the returns were filed, and the taxpayer was compliant.
It is important to note that, according to the respondent, one of the consequences for cancelling a taxpayer’s registration with retrospective effect is that the taxpayer’s customers are denied the input tax credit availed in respect of the supplies made by the taxpayer during such period - it is not considered apposite to examine this aspect but assuming that the respondent’s contention in required to consider this aspect while passing any order for cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect. Thus, a taxpayer's registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted.
Further, there is no reasoning in the said show cause notice and in the impugned order as to why the cancellation has been done retrospectively.
The impugned show cause notice dated 11.02.2021 and order of cancellation dated 19.04.2021 are accordingly set aside - petition allowed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1121
Refund claim - export of service - zero rated supply - receipt in convertible foreign exchange - Paypal directly credits the amounts received in Indian currency directly into the petitioner's account. - whether the petitioner is entitled for refund of the tax borne on input and final service exported to its overseas customers? - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the petitioner is providing services of its clients through its online portal to customers/client. The payments for the services provided by the petitioner are routed through an intermediary namely Paypal with whom the petitioner has an arrangement - As an intermediary, Paypal directly credits the amounts received in Indian currency directly into the petitioner's account. As far as export proceeds, the amounts are received in convertible foreign exchange by the said intermediary namely Paypal. The amounts are first credited into its account with CITI Bank of the said intermediary namely Paypal. Thereafter, amounts in Indian currency are transferred from the intermediaries CITI Bank account to the petitioner's account with HDFC Bank after deduction of its service charges.
As per Regulation 3(2)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Manner of Receipt and Payment) Regulations, 2016 any other mode of receipt of export proceeds for an export from India in accordance with the directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India to authorized dealers from time to time - Thus, if payments are routed through an intermediary to person like petitioner, the intermediary should be an authorised person to receive such payment in convertible foreign exchange. As an intermediary, the petitioner is required to only credit the amounts in convertible foreign exchange into Reserve Bank of India.
Merely because the receipts are rooted through the intermediary and received in Indian currency ipso facto would not mean that the petitioner has not exported services within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017. Receipt of payment by an intermediary for and on behalf of its client like the petitioner will qualify as payment received by the client. As the only requirement is with the payments received is freely convertible foreign exchange has to be directly remitted into the authorized dealers account as otherwise an intermediary will be violate the requirements of the foreign exchange.
Thus, without doubt, the petitioner is entitled for refund. Reference to Circular No.88/07/2019-GST dated 01.02.2019 to concluded that the petitioner has not realized the amount in freely convertible foreign exchange therefore cannot be countenanced.
The impugned order passed by the 1st respondent Additional Commissioner (Appeals I) upholding the orders passed by the 2nd respondent is unsustainable and is therefore liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1120
Seeking release of provisionally attached bank accounts - 13 provisional orders - Petition was dismissed on the ground of disputed questions of fact - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the show cause notice dated 06.12.2023 is yet to be adjudicated, an order of provisional attachment that too 13 in number by attaching all the bank accounts of the appellant is very harsh, more particularly, when there is no material on record to indicate that there is an attempt made by the appellant to evade the payment of tax. That apart, the tax and interest which is payable is yet to be adjudicated as the matter is still in the stage of the show cause notice. Therefore, at this juncture, the orders of provisional attachment of all the bank accounts of the appellant cannot be sustained.
The order passed in the writ petition is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1119
Allowable business expenditure - commercial expediency - Disallowance of claim of expenditure on the ground that it was not incurred “wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business” - expenditure incurred by the Assessee in the form of loans and advances to its subsidiaries which were subsequently written off - as decided by HC [2022 (11) TMI 782 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] expenditure was in the nature of moneys advanced to the subsidiaries, it cannot be said that there is no intimate connection between the Assessee and the two subsidiaries as far as the business activities are concerned.
HELD THAT:- There is a gross delay of 340 days in filing the special leave petition. We are not satisfied with the explanation offered for condonation of delay.
Hence, the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed.
Consequently, the special leave petition is also dismissed keeping open the question of law, if any.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1118
Principle of grossing up u/s 195A - TDS u/s 195 on the amount payable to University of Warwick, UK - Whether the grossing up has to be done to arrive at the tax to be deducted at source? - as decided by HC [2018 (9) TMI 81 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] obligation to pay the tax is on the University of Warwick and since the assessee in terms of the agreement agreed to pay the taxes, the same has to be necessarily added to the income of the University of Warwick and therefore, the principle of grossing up has to be applied.
HELD THAT:- Special Leave Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn, However, the question of law is kept open.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1117
Validity of Reopening of assessment - scrutiny assessment concluded - reasons to believe - sale of teakwood trees for year consideration were not genuine - As decided by HC [2017 (6) TMI 605 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] AO had recorded elaborate reasons to prima facie demonstrate that the figures of sale of teakwood trees for year consideration were not genuine if, at all, exaggerated and also in cases of sham transactions, the assessee cannot avoid the re-opening on the ground that earlier the issue was scrutinized
HELD THAT:- As petitioner submits that the present petition has become infructuous in view of the assessment order having been passed during the pendency of the Special Leave Petition.
In view of the statement made, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.
Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1116
Benefit of Vivad se Vishwas Scheme - Which appeals are covered under the Vivad se Vishwas? - whether the filing of the revision after the specified date but within the period of limitation as available rendered the petitioners ineligible from availing the beneficial coverage of the VSV Act.
HELD THAT:- CBDT had clearly provided that the provisions of the VSV Act would also extend to those disputes which emanated from orders passed under the Act and which could be appealed against and the limitation for preferment of those appeals having not come to an end prior to the specified date.
Undisputedly, the period of limitation for the preferment of a revision could not be said to have come to an end on 31 January 2020 bearing in mind the provisions of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 and the orders passed on Suo Moto 3/2020. The limitation for filing a revision in terms of the aforesaid thus travelled beyond the specified date of 31 January 2020.
In our considered opinion, once the respondents had taken the principled position that the VSV Act would apply even in those matters where the limitation period for filing of appeals had not expired on the specified date, there can be no valid justification to either countenance or draw a distinction between an appeal and a revision. The acceptance of such a distinction would be wholly illogical quite apart from being manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondents, having accepted the directive of the CBDT insofar as appeals are concerned, cannot be permitted to justifiably take the position that the same would not extend to revisions. Once the CBDT had clarified that cases where the limitation for filing of appeals had not expired on 31 January 2020 would also be covered, it would be wholly unfair to hold that the same principle would not apply to a revision.
More importantly, the clarificatory directive of the Board must be interpreted and understood in light of the underlying legislative policy of the VSV Act of providing an avenue for settlement of disputes coupled with the insurmountable challenges which were faced by people during the pandemic. If the clarification were to be viewed in that light it becomes apparent that the core theme of the Board directive was to extend the beneficial reach of the VSV Act even to those cases where assessees’ still retained the right to question an adverse order or decision on the specified date and where the law itself conferred upon them a right to raise such a challenge. There thus exists no justification to restrict the ambit of the clarification merely to appeals and exclude other avenues of redress which were otherwise available to be pursued on the specified date.
In our considered opinion, the Scheme as well as the provisions of the VSV Act constitute beneficial legislation and are liable to be construed and interpreted accordingly.
We allow the instant petition and quash the notifications of rejection impugned in the present petition. Since the petitioner has already deposited the entire disputed tax liability as computed in terms of the VSV Act, the Form 5 issued during the pendency of these proceedings is accorded finality.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1115
Recovery proceedings - Attachment of assets of the 4th respondent - alienation/transfer as contrary to section 281 of IT Act - claim of ownership of the property - void sale agreement - as alleged sale by an assessee in default with an intention to defraud revenue
Whether the impugned order is liable to be quashed or whether the petitioner or the fourth respondent should be relegated to approach the Civil court in terms of the Section 11(6) of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 or whether the fourth respondent who has failed to file the Civil suit in terms of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [2017 (10) TMI 1648 - SC ORDER] is entitled to have audience before this Court.
HELD THAT:- Tax Recovery Officer has to examine who is in possession of the property and in what capacity. Tax Recovery Officer can attach property in possession of the assessee in his own right, or in possession of the tenant or 3rd party on behalf of/for the benefit of the assessee.
The Court however concluded that Tax Recovery Officer cannot declare sale made by the assessee in favour of a 3rd party as void, if he finds that the property of the assessee was transferred by the assessee to a 3rd party with “ an intention to defraud the revenue".
As mentioned above, the expression “intention” has been deleted in the amended Section. The Court further held that, the Income Tax Department will have to file a suit in terms of Rule 11 (6) of the 2nd Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961, though under Rule 11 (6) of the 2nd Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the party against whom an order of attachment is made, has to institute a suit in a civil court to establish the right which he claims over the property in dispute and subject to the result of such suit (if any), the order of the Tax Recovery Officer shall be conclusive.
Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tax Recovery officer II, Sadar, Nagpur Vs. Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade [1998 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. Further, Tax Recovery officer is not required to declare the sale between the petitioner and the fourth respondent as invalid as the sale is void abinito. The petitioner has to institute a suit in a civil court to establish the right which he claims over the property in dispute.
Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1114
Income recognition - advances received from clients - reimbursement / out of pocket expenses - manner in which books are being kept u/s 145 - assessee solicitor firm receives advances from clients in pre-post expenditure basis and the payments are made on behalf of the clients - AO observed that “out of pocket expenses” had been exclusively kept out of the books and on reimbursement of the sum by the clients to the assessee, it was the duty of the assessee to route the same through the profit and loss account and in the absence of such course being taken, AO added the same amount to the total income of the assessee
HELD THAT:- The solicitor is the agent of the client. The client makes over the money to the solicitor for some work being done by the Solicitor as his agent. The money must be employed to that purpose and must not be treated as money received for any other purpose. This position is not altered by the fact that the solicitor retains a lien upon the balance of the money for his costs. The result of solicitor having a lien on the balance of the money is no more than a person having a charge on somebody else's money.
We are of the opinion that when a solicitor receives money from his client, he does not do so as a trading receipt but he receives the money of the principal in his capacity as an agent and that also in a fiduciary capacity. The money so received does not have any profit-making quality about it when received. It remains money received by a solicitor as "client's money” for being employed in the client’s cause. The solicitor remains liable to account by this money to his client.
We are of the view that the monies received by assessee from clients were held by the assessee in a fiduciary capacity. The money received by the assessee was the money of the principal which was received by him as the agent in a fiduciary capacity for being employed for the work of the principal (clients) entrusted to him.
It was not trading receipt. Therefore, the respondent/assessee was not under any legal obligation to show it as his receipts of money from the clients. Even factually, since the money received from clients by the respondent/assessee was not his money, therefore, the assessee could not have entered it in his accounts as his money. That apart, the payments made by the assessee as agent on behalf of his client (principal) under various heads, have not been doubted or disputed and instead a finding of fact regarding such payments have been arrived at by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The effect of receipt of money as agent stood neutralised by payment thereof on behalf of the principal (clients). Hence, effect of receipts stood neutralised in so far as the determination of income liable to tax is concerned.
Ld' Counsel for the appellant has placed much reliance upon the provisions of Section 145 of the Act, 1961. We find on facts of the present case that no adverse inference on the basis of Section 145 can be drawn against the assessee inasmuch as it is not the case of the revenue that sub-Section (3) of Section 145 is attracted on facts of the present case. Even, learned Counsel for the appellants, despite being asked by us repeatedly, could not point out from the assessment order that any of the conditions as contained in sub-Section (3) of Section 145, factually existed.
Substantial question of law as framed is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue
-
2024 (2) TMI 1113
Appeal of the assessee dismissed ex-parte before the revenue authorities - Denial of natural justice - contention of the AR is that neither the assessee nor his representative has received any notices for hearing to prosecute assessee’s case with available material evidences and as pleaded to afford another opportunity before the CIT(A) to substantiate his case with evidences.
HELD THAT:- Keeping in view the principles of natural justice, remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to afford one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is directed to adhere to the notices issued by the department and cooperate with the proceedings of the revenue authorities. Hence, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1112
Taxability of income in India - income accrue or arise in India or not - make available any technical knowledge, skill, know-how or process or not? - HELD THAT:- As relying on assessee own case [2022 (11) TMI 1313 - ITAT PUNE] for A.Y. 2017-18 as assessee is entitled for benefit of “India USA DTAA” and since the condition of ‘make available’ has not been satisfied in the case of the assessee, the services are not taxable in India. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee.
............
|
9911796707
