|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 421 to 440 of 1733 Records
-
2019 (6) TMI 1315
Deemed assessment - grant of one more opportunity to the writ petitioner to produce books of accounts as well as purchase and sales details - TNVAT Act - alternate remedy of appeal - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of an appeal under Section 51 of TNVAT Act. There is no disputation or disagreement before this Court that this appeal i.e., alternate remedy, lies to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (East). In other words, it lies to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes - With regard to alternate remedy, there are a long line of authorities rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In the instant case, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the statutory appeal i.e., alternate remedy, has to be preferred within 30 days from the date of receipt of the impugned order. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 30.04.2019 was received by the writ petitioner on 09.05.2019. Be that as it may, it is brought to the notice of this Court that under Section 51 of TNVAT Act, there is a provision for Appellate Authority to condone delay albeit subject to a cap of 30 days. In other words, there is a cap of 30 days. The writ petitioner is well within this 30 days.
This Court is not interfering with the impugned order in the light of alternate remedy or in other words by applying the rule of alternate remedy - It is open to the writ petitioner to prefer an appeal to the aforesaid Appellate Authority i.e, Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (East) - petition disposed off.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1314
Principles of natural justice - It is the specific case of the writ petitioner that the respondent should have sent a response rescheduling/refixing the personal hearing - HELD THAT:- In the light of paragraph 3(a)(i) of the aforesaid circular, which is admittedly binding on the respondent, this Court is unable to accept this submission as it is imperative that the respondent should have responded to the request for adjournment, which was made well within the 15 days stipulated in Paragraph 3(a)(i) of the circular. Therefore, the inevitable sequitur that follows is that there was no personal hearing, which is a prescribed procedure and therefore, there is violation of NJP.
The impugned orders set aside solely on the ground of violation of NJP i.e., personal hearing, which is a prescribed procedure, not being given - petition disposed off.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1313
Validity of assessment order - TNVAT Act - Audit Report in Form WW - Section 63-A of TNVAT Act, 2006 - financial year 2016-2017 - HELD THAT:- The entire issue covered in the case of TVL. NITHRA FURNITURE P. LTD., VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) , CHENNAI [2015 (8) TMI 1467 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where it was held that Once the original defect, if at all it was a defect, was cured by the assessee, by filing Form WW, the respondent cannot simply throw the form out on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation. This is especially so when best of judgment assessment orders have been passed by him.
The impugned order is set aside only to facilitate assessment to be done afresh in the light of Audit Report in Form WW, which has since been filed along with penalty - Now that the Audit Report in Form WW has been filed with the respondent, the respondent shall make the assessment afresh, taking into account the Audit Report in Form WW and pass assessment order afresh, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition disposed off.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1312
Deemed assessment - initiation of proceedings for making assessment on best judgment method - Section 22(4) of TNVAT Act - reassessment under Section 22(6) of TNVAT Act - HELD THAT:- Leaving this question as to whether personal hearing is imperative for a revision under Section 22(6) of TNVAT Act open, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court held that impugned assessment order dated 27.02.2017 as well as the order passed in the revision being order dated 29.04.2019 are set aside - petition disposed off.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1311
Stay of recovery proceedings - grievance of the Petitioner before us is that the issue arising before the Tribunal was a pure question of law, thus the order passed by the lower authority ought to have been stayed on a deposit of 10% as offered by the Petitioner - HELD THAT:- Its trite law that the scope of examination of the appeal at the final hearing and an application for stay of an order, challenged in appeal, pending disposal of the appeal, is entirely different. At the final hearing, the appeal is considered in depth and all the facets of the case are considered. On the other hand, while hearing an application for stay of the order in challenge before the Tribunal, a prima facie view of the strength of the case before it is considered. Therefore, where the issue is concluded by a decision of the superior forum or on decision of the authority hearing the stay application, then it would be a factor warranting a stay.
In the present facts, we note that the submission of the Petitioner were duly considered and a prima facie view was taken after consideration of facts and the prevailing law. The challenge to the impugned order before us by the Petitioner is entitlement of lower tax on bunker fuel in view of Schedule 'C' to the Act. This on the ground that the bunker fuel is supplied to foreign going vessels. We note this submission was considered by the Tribunal and rejected at the prima faice stage, as the Petitioner had conceded the position that the bunker fuels are supplied to vessels which are not foreign going vessels.
Petition dismissed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1310
Conditions imposed for grant of stay - Telangana VAT Act - At the time of filing of appeals, the petitioner has paid 12.5% of the disputed tax and disputed penalty. It is stated that even subsequently, they have paid some amounts - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that directing the petitioner to pay 25% of the disputed tax and 25% of the disputed penalty, for the grant of stay, pending first appeals, would meet the ends of justice. This is for the reason, that the petitioner has another tier of remedy in the form of second appeal to the Tribunal and that at that time, he may be asked to pay more amounts.
The writ petitions are disposed of granting interim stay of collection of disputed tax and disputed penalty subject to the petitioner paying, a sum equivalent to 25% of the disputed penalty and 25% of the disputed tax within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1309
Violation of Human Rights - Corruption - alleged irregularities committed in allotting LPG Distributorship by officers of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. at Kishangarh Renwal, Tehsil Sambhar, Jaipur - HELD THAT:- Commission observes that the reliance placed by CPIO on the earlier decisions of the coordinate benches to substantiate the view that CBI is only obliged to provide information relating to allegation of corruption against its own employees does not hold good.
Appellant’s contention in the Second Appeal that the subject matter concerns allegations of corruption, Commission does not find any substantive material on record in support of his claim. Moreover, Appellant has also not availed the opportunity of hearing to plead his case and mere claim of corruption or human rights violation is not adequate to attract the proviso to Section 24(1) of RTI Act.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1308
Classification of services - rate of tax - applicant engaged in leasing out cranes and equipment and locomotives, provides diesel-hydraulic locomotives to several companies for placement/shunting of rakes/wagons/oil tankers from the siding or terminal of the Indian Railways to the factory premises of the company and vice versa - N/N. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28/06/2017 (corresponding State Notification No. 1135 - FT dated 28/06/2017), as amended from time to time.
HELD THAT:- Transportation of coal from Andal Station to DSTPS Siding is, therefore, railway transport, and the service of moving empty or loaded wagons/rakes at DSTPS Siding is nothing but the supporting service of railway pushing and towing (SAC 996731). It describes the nature of the Applicant’s service more specifically than ‘leasing or rental services concerning transport equipment, including containers with or without operator (SAC 997311) - The communication from the East Central Railway referred to above, which deals with the GST applicable to different services that the Railways offer to the customer, is not relevant in the present context.
The Applicant’s service to the DVC, as described in para no. 4.1, is classifiable as ‘railway pushing and towing service’ (SAC 996731) and taxable @ 18% under Sl No Il(ii) of Notification No. 11/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 28/06/2017 (corresponding State Notification No. 1135 - FT dated 28/06/2017), as amended from time to time.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1307
Levy of CGST AND SGST or IGST - "Clinical Research" services proposed to be provided by them to entities located outside India - Place of supply of services - Export of services or not - section 2(6) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The Applicant will be providing Clinical Research (as mentioned in their application), in the form of comprehensive range of clinical research and support services to their clients (sponsors), by performing technical testing and analysis on the Drug/lnvestigational Product, provided by sponsors located outside India and submits final analyses report to such foreign sponsors. The Research (study) will be conducted on human subjects. Thus we find that the Research is for conducting a study of the effect of such Investigational Product/drug.
Place of Supply of Services - outside India or not? - Section 13 of the IGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- In this case, the applicant supplying the services is in India and the client/sponsor to whom the services are supplied is situated outside India - The applicant have themselves submitted that the services of research are rendered by them in respect of the subject Drug/product, which are made available to them in India. Only when these drugs are received then they administer the same to their subject under certain conditions and observed the effect of the drugs on such subject and finally make research reports which are then sent to their sponsors. The Applicant has submitted that they are engaged by the sponsors only for the report and not for merely administering the drug and recording the results alone. This contention is flawed inasmuch as it is natural that in such cases the sponsors would like to know the efficacy of their drugs on subject and for which the testing of the drugs themselves are important. The entire administration of the drugs has to take place under controlled conditions and results have to be meticulously taken down. The report is only a culmination of the entire process.
As the applicant receives goods in India and the testing process is also carried out in India. The said goods are physically made available to them by their sponsors and therefore the place of supply of services is in India as per Section 13(3)(a) of the IGST Act. Since the place of supply is in taxable territory it is clear that the provisions of Section 2(6) of the IGST Act are not fulfilled in this case and therefore their supply cannot be considered as Export of Services as per the GST Law.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1306
Exemption from GST - services provided under vocational training courses recognized by National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT) or Jan Shikshan Sansthan (JSS) - Whether the service is exempt either under Entry No 64 of exemption list of Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 or under Educational Institution defined under Notification 22/Central Tax (Rate)? - HELD THAT:- Entry 64 of Notification 12/2017 CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 deals with “services provided by the Central/State Government, Union Territory or local authority by way of assignment of right to use any natural resource where such right to use was assigned by the Central/State Government, Union Territory or local authority' - The applicant is not a Central/ State Government, Union Territory or local authority and therefore Entry No. 64 is not applicable to them.
Whether they are eligible under the entry at serial number 66 of the Notification 12/2017 CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017? - HELD THAT:- The applicant has admitted that they do not fall under clause 2(y) (i) & (ii) mentioned above but that they fall under Clause (iii). For their services to fall under clause (iii), they have to be seen providing education as a part of an approved vocational education course - From the documents submitted by the applicant, we find that they have been granted affiliation by the National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT) in respect of vocational skills pertaining to (i) Diesel Mechanic, (ii) Computer Operator and Programming Assistance (COPA), (iii) Welder and (iv) Motor Mechanic. These courses are vocational courses and are approved by NCVT.
The vocational education courses pertaining to (i) Diesel Mechanic, (ii) Computer Operator and Programming Assistance (COPA), (iii) Welder and (iv) Motor Mechanic are carried out by the applicant who are affiliated to the NCVT and therefore such services provided by them are attracting NIL rate of tax under GST. (Sr.No. 66 of Notification No. 12/2017 CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2019.
In respect of the Informal Trades like Tailoring, Offset Printing, Electrician and Wiring, the applicant have themselves submitted that these courses i.e. Offset Printing, Tailoring and Electrician & Wiring are non-recognized courses and that they are inclined only to discuss recognized courses. Further, they also have vocational training for wheeler Mechanic, which they have submitted is a training course recognized by Jan Shikshan Sansthan (JSS) under the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Govt. of India. However they have not produced any evidence to support their submissions on this count.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1305
Input Tax credit of GST paid - expenses incurred towards promotional schemes of Shubh Labh Loyalty Program - expenses incurred towards promotional schemes goods given as brand reminders - Scope of 'Gift' - HELD THAT:- The applicant, a registered person under GST ACT is engaged in business of sale of pharmaceutical goods and services through group entities during the course of which they incur various marketing and distribution expenses, with a view to promote their brand/ products and to enhance their sales under various schemes .The applicant distributes different type of products among its trade channels as promotional items or brand reminders.
The applicant is mainly dealing and supplying of Pharmaceutical goods and services and in order to achieve sales and marketing objectives, they have launched various target based - sales incentive schemes for their distributors/ wholesalers to achieve a specified target and in turn helps the company to achieve their targets. The present subject application is in respect of a sales promotion scheme known as “Shubh Labh Loyalty Program 2018” and promotional products which has been floated by them for their customers. In the first case, their distributors/ wholesaler Customers who purchased certain products over and above a certain quantity would be entitled to get reward points. In the second scenario, applicant is giving Brand reminder products like pens, notepad, key-chains to the distributors or Doctors, which serve as an advertisement tool. The brand reminders are distributed to the distributors or doctors with their name embossed on it to promote the brand for sales.
Taking into account applicant’s contention that the subject free supplies have been made in pursuance of their business, jurisdictional officer submit that the fact remains that the same have been made free of cost and therefore, the same are non-taxable under Section 9 read with Section 2(78) and merits to be treated as exempt supply under Section 2(47). Further, there are no provisions under Section 15 to include the cost of such free supplies in the value of taxable free samples. There cannot be any dispute that the said supplies are exempted, hence credit is not allowable in terms of Section 17(2). Further, gifts has to be disallowed in terms of Section 17(5)(h), notwithstanding the fact that the subject supply has been used in course of furtherance of business in terms of Section 16(1). The provisions of Section 17(5) (h) are applicable notwithstanding the provisions of Section 16(1).
The applicant is not eligible for the ITC as the promotional products/ services to be distributed and are not inputs and hence, GST paid on such a purchase does not qualify to be an input tax for the purpose of Section 16(1) read with Section 2(62) of the CGST Act 2017.
The provisions of ITC are governed by Sections 16 and 17 of the CGST Act, 2017. In order to avail ITC, two basic provisions need to be complied with, i.e. Section 16 and Section 17. As per Section 16, a taxpayer is entitled to take credit of input tax charged on any supply of goods or services to him which are used in the course or furtherance of his business. i.e. this section disallows ITC against input goods/ services used for non-business purposes. Section 17 (5) of the CGST Act deals with Blocked credits and begins with a non obstante clause, which means even if Section 16 (1) allows ITC, Section 17(5) shall block in respect of certain cases.
Whether the different promotional products in the present case can be treated as a gift or not? - HELD THAT:- A contractual arrangement implies especially in view of the magnitude and area of the applicant’s business that, it should also be agreed by the customer in writing to such scheme floated by the applicant. We find that they have not submitted any such contract/ agreement and in support of their contention, but they have only submitted a scheme of Shubh labh Loyalty is available on companies web site and interested customers can Login with details to avail the benefit of scheme from 2018 to Jan, 2019 - Hence we find that the promotional products are not given to their customers under any contractual obligation and are voluntarily given on certain conditions achieved by their customers.
A “gift” is normally seen as an enticement to customers as in the subject case which would bear heavily on the customers in making purchase of particular quantities and above or in making payments of certain values and above. This act on behalf of the applicant if it is not excluded from the scope of being a supply, then the provisions of the Valuation Rules come into play. In other words if the giver of the gift does not pay output tax on the same then the compensation to the department would be the foregoing of the ITC on such gifts.
ITC on “gifts” will not be available when no GST is being paid on their disposal. Just because the applicant submits that they have satisfied Section 16 (1) of the CGST Act 2017 does not mean that they are entitled to credit since Section 17(5) starts with “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of Section 16..'' - The implication is that in the subject case even if it seems, as per the applicant, that Section 16 (1) is applicable in their case and allows them credit, Section 17(5) shall block such credits,
The transaction is nothing but a gift - The Applicants should not be entitled to ITC on GST paid on expenses incurred towards promotional schemes of Shubh Labh Loyalty Programme and goods given as brand reminders.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1304
Learned Single Judge had omitted to consider and adjudicate upon other grounds raised in the writ petition - Constitutional validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act - time limitation - HELD THAT:- Issue decided in the case of M/S. SHEEN GOLDEN JEWELS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE STATE TAX OFFICER (IB) -1, AND OTHERS [2019 (2) TMI 300 - KERALA HIGH COURT] where it was held that The petitioner's plea is rejected that the State lacks the vires to graft Section 174 into KSGST Act, 2017.
Remittance of the writ petition for fresh consideration and disposal on the grounds raised other than the validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act, would serve the ends of justice - The writ petition is restored on the files of this Court.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1303
Deduction u/s 10AA - alleged that assessee taking undue benefit of Section 10AA by not claiming interest on the capital and remuneration to partners which resulted into increase in the exempt profit - CIT(A) held that the clause H of the Partnership Deed specifically restricts payment of Interest to Partners on their Capital as well as Remuneration to Partners - HELD THAT:- It appears that the Appellate Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the Revenue, placed strong reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Alidhra Taxspin Engineers and another [2017 (5) TMI 1684 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] . where in it was held that on interpretation of the partnership agreement and considering the wish of the partners reflected in the partnership deed, not to pay/charge interest on the partners capital and the remuneration, the learned tribunal has rightly deleted the disallowance made by the AO with respect to the deduction claimed u/s 80IB.
We are of the view that the issue is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of this Court - Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed
-
2019 (6) TMI 1302
Stay petition - recovery proceedings - pre-deposits - HELD TAT:- The very fact that four equal installments are granted by the 2nd respondent indicates consideration of all relevant circumstances including the hardship which was brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent. The case does not warrant interference against the discretion exercised by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P5. He prays for dismissing the writ petition. He alternatively submits that the petitioner since has established a few bona fides by depositing ₹ 98,44,201/- (Rupees Ninety eight lakh forty four thousand two hundred and one only) the four equal installments granted in Ext.P5 can be extended reasonably by this Court.
After perusing the Ext.P5, we are satisfied that the condition imposed cannot be treated as arbitrary or unreasonably in the facts and circumstances of the case. The 2nd respondent has granted four equal installments. In all the circumstances granting four equal installments amounts to granting sufficient time for complying with the condition imposed by the appellate authority. But keeping in mind the hardship now pleaded by the counsel appearing for the petitioner as an exceptional case and the exercise of the jurisdiction of the this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the installments are extended from four to six installments.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1301
Review Petition - Interest u/s 220(2) levied - applicant came up with a case that levy of interest was on the higher side and it was causing great hardship - writ was earlier rejected against order of Pr. CIT application for waiver of interest u/s 220(2) - HELD THAT:- As decided in HARIDAS DAS VERSUS SMT. USHA RANI BANIK & ORS [2006 (3) TMI 686 - SUPREME COURT] rehearing of a case can be done on account of some mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. In the present case, there is no error apparent on the face of the record and the petitioner infact under the guise of review is challenging the order passed by this Court, which is under review.
In the present case the petitioner has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of the record . See INDERCHAND JAIN (D) TH. LRS. VERSUS MOTILAL (D) TH. LRS. [2009 (7) TMI 1029 - SUPREME COURT] dealing with the scope of review has held that re-appreciation of evidence and rehearing of case without there being any error apparent on the face of the record is not permissible in light of provisions as contained u/s 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Thus this court does not find any reason to review the order.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1300
Powers of the DRP u/s 144C(8) - authority either to direct the AO or TPO to make further enquiry and decide the matter - DRP has reduced the variation than what was granted to the assessee in the draft assessment order - Tribunal was right in not deciding the grounds raised by the Revenue in their grounds of appeal touching upon the merits of the assessment order? - HELD THAT:- The order dated 24.11.2015 passed by the DRP is an order reducing the variation proposed in the draft assessment order dated 25.02.2015. Thus, in our considered view, the Tribunal was not right in holding that the DRP exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the order. In any event, the order passed by the DRP was not impugned before the Tribunal rather what was impugned was the assessment order dated 28.12.2015 passed under Section 144C(13) r/w Section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal was required to consider on merits whether the said assessment order was justified or not.
The Revenue was clear in their mind in the challenge before the Tribunal which was an final order of assessment passed under Section 144C(13) and therefore, on facts we found that the DRP has granted relief to the assessee and the correctness of relief granted to the assessee which has translated into a final assessment order which was questioned by the Revenue before the Tribunal on merits. Therefore, on facts we have held as above.
We hold that the Tribunal should decide the matter rather than allowing the appeal filed by the Revenue in its entirety.
Appeal is allowed and the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee, consequently, the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal filed by the Revenue on merits, on the grounds raised by it in the appeal memorandum as referred above and such other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1299
Expenditure on replacement of old machinery by purchase and installation of new machinery - revenue expenditure as current repairs or capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- As decided in SARAVANA SPINNING MILLS P. LTD. [2007 (8) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT] there are several machines and perform different functions. Therefore, when each of the department/division perform different functions, repair/ substitution of an old machine will not come within the definition of the word “current repairs” and deduction cannot be claimed thereunder.
In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgement and order passed by the Gujarat High Court as also the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals on this issue cannot be sustained and are thereby set aside. It is held that the respondent is not entitled for any deduction under the head “current repairs” as claimed and allowed by the two authorities. - Decided in favour of revenue
-
2019 (6) TMI 1298
Revision u/s 263 - in original assessment AO estimated net profit @ 7% which was reduced by CIT(A) @ 5% - subject matter of appeal - HELD THAT:- We are in no confusion to hold that there was no infirmity in the exercise done by the Commissioner, Income Tax II purportedly u/s 263 because the provisions of Section 263(c) suitably empowers the Commissioner to pass such order even if any appeal is pending but with a caveat, that the order passed under Section 263 shall govern only such matters which was neither a subject matter nor decided in appeal.
It is not in dispute that issue on which the remand order was passed in purported exercise of powers vested in the CIT u/s 263 i.e. unsecured loans/creditors, was not a subject matter of appeal and obviously could not have because this issue had been decided by the statutory authority in favour of assessee.
No infirmity in the exercise and since the order has been acted upon to result in the fresh assessment order, we leave it open for the assessee to question the same in accordance with law but finding no issues which are in the nature of substantial question of law we refuse to grant indulgence, to dispose in this appeal.
Be noted that we have not expressed any opinion on the inter-party merits and the appellant shall be at liberty to raise all issues as he chooses to raise, to question the order passed on remand of the matter u/s 263.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1297
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - invalid notice issued u/s 274 - HELD THAT:- Whether Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of particulars of income or for furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the notice issued by the AO is a vague notice and is liable to be quashed in the light of the decision of Telangana & A.P. in the case of Smt. Baisetty Revathi [2017 (7) TMI 776 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows [2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER].
The coordinate bench of the Visakhapatnam tribunal in the case of Konchada Sreeram Vs. ITO [2017 (7) TMI 776 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] has considered the validity of notice by following the above referred to judgments and held that notice issued by the Assessing Officer is not a valid notice and accordingly quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1296
Revision u/s 263 - assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143 (3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue - unexplained cash credit - HELD THAT:- Identical issue has been decided by the coordinate bench in ITA number 6905/del/2017 for assessment year 2007 – 08 along with 4 other assessees having similar facts , where in the order passed by the learned Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the income tax act was upheld. The case of the assessee is also falling into the similar factual matrix including the name of the accommodation entry provider and the similar seized material. The coordinate bench vide para number 10 and 11 has considered the two decisions of the coordinate benches for upholding the order passed by the CIT u/s 263 of the income tax act.
Further the factual matrix is also identical to the decision of the honourable Calcutta High Court in case of Raj mandir Estates private limited vs CIT [2016 (5) TMI 801 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] where the action of the learned CIT-A invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 of the income tax act was upheld.
We do not find any reason to not to uphold the order of the learned Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the income tax act as the order passed by the learned assessing officer u/s 147 read with section 143 (3) of the income tax act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
