|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 421 to 440 of 1466 Records
-
2024 (6) TMI 1046
Revision u/s 263 - deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - AO held that the interest income earned out of the investments in FDs is to be allowed as a deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - HELD THAT:- We find that for the immediately preceding Assessment Year viz., 2017-18, assessee had earned interest income out of investments with SCDCC Bank Ltd.- The same was brought to tax by the AO in the Assessment Order for Assessment Year 2017-18 as “income from other sources” and the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act was rejected. On further appeal, the CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2017-18 and held that the said interest income received by the assessee is out of statutory compulsions and is part of operational income entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act
Since there was factual finding in the instant case that investments in FDs with SCDCC Bank Ltd., is out of statutory compulsions and interest income received on the same is part of operating income, we are of the view that the order of the PCIT invoking his revisionary powers under section 263 of the Act, is not valid. In other words, there is no error much less an error prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in the Assessment Order dated 02.12.2022 warranting revision u/s 263 of the Act. Therefore, we hold that the Assessment Order granting the benefit of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act with respect to the interest income of Rs.3,53,68,999/- is justified on facts of the instant case. Hence, we quash the order of PCIT passed under section 263 of the Act - Assessee appeal of assessee allowed.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1045
Benami transactions - attachment of the properties of the non appellants - Adjudicating Authority refused to confirm the order of attachment mainly on the grounds that the funds came to the beneficiaries as a loan or advances and were released by M/s Danodia Investments & Finance Ltd. through bank or proper banking channel - HELD THAT:- The Bank account of the transaction was supporting the aforesaid and thereby it cannot be said that M/s Danodia Investments & Finance Ltd was a non-existing Company and otherwise the loan or advances was not by way of benami transaction.
The finding aforesaid is in ignorance of the benami transaction. The Adjudicating Authority conveniently ignored as to how the fund came to M/s Danodia Investments & Finance Ltd. The Adjudicating Authority even failed to analyse how the shares were issued at the premium of Rs. 990/- by a Company having no business at all, rather it was existing on papers to provide accommodation entries. The fact aforesaid was conveniently ignored by the Adjudicating Authority and tried to focus only on the period subsequent to the benami transaction by which money was injected in the accounts of M/s Danodia Investments & Finance Ltd.
We find that the subsequent transaction was out of the benami property defined under section 2 (8) of the Act of 1988, and was otherwise out of the benami transaction of M/s Danodia Investments & Finance Ltd.
Adjudicating Authority conveniently ignored the fact regarding non-existence of 79 entities or it was on papers and pumped in the money in the accounts of M/s Danodia Investments & Finance Ltd. The funds came even subsequently in the year 2014-15 also by way of benami transactions and therefore only despite the notice, 79 entities did not respond to the notice.
We find that the impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures. And thereby the Adjudicating Authority had ignored all the relevant facts available on record and even referred in the impugned order.
Affidavit filed by the non-appellant which is common for majority of the entities. It is of Mr. Somnath Samanta who submitted the supporting affidavit for majority of the non-appellant Companies which includes M/s Danodia Investments & Finance Ltd and even for few Square Four Group Companies and other entities. The exception may be for M/s Mahi Trading Private Limited and Micro Network Private Ltd. etc. For Square Four Assets Management, no separate contest has been made, rather the arguments and the representation is common. The affidavits otherwise reverberates the same and it would be relevant that said Mr. Somnath Samanta had filed the affidavit even for Square Four Housing & Infrastructure and at the same time for M/s Danodia Investments & Finance Ltd. His affidavit is seen even for Square Four Residency Private Limited.
The only argument made now be in reference to section 2 (9) (D) defining the benami transaction as amended by the notification of 2016 with effect from 01.11.2016 - The facts available on record shows that transaction or the arrangement in this case is by non traceable or fictitious entities because 79 entities were found either on paper or not traceable, leaving few. The money was pumped in by layering or cash deposit by those entities which were not found traceable or were having no source to pump the money in the account of M/s Danodia Investments & Finance Ltd. It is however to clarify that mere reference of a provision different than applicable would not wash the effect of other provision, if applicable.
For all the reasons given above, we find force in the argument of the counsel for the appellant Department and find reason to cause interference in the impugned order, which is set aside. The order of the Adjudicating Authority is set aside and the order of provisional attachment is confirmed.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1044
Classification of imported goods - Unwrought/Unrefined Zinc - to be classified under CTH No. 79012090 or not - demand of differential duty on the basis of theoretical transaction value, based on NIDB price of primary Zinc ingots - rejection of transaction value by the Assessing Officer - restricted item for import - HELD THAT:- The chemical examination report reproduced and the Revenue’s contention that the imported goods were Zinc Dross is without a shred of sustainable evidence. The percentage of zinc found upon test may be higher than that declared but is certainly below the specified limit to merit classification as Zinc Dross, but for that of B/E No. 4663314 dated 18.2.14. In so far as the said question has been raised by the Revenue, it may be pointed out that they are precluded to raise such a question of classification in subsequent appellate proceedings.
The Learned Appellate Authority has relied on case law support that have since settled the Question involved in the present appeal. In fact The Learned Appellate Commissioner, discussed at significant length, the facts of the case and applied the legal position thereto as arises in view of settled case laws. However, in view of what has been stated above that the Revenue was barred from raising the impugned question of law having conceded the same in lower proceedings and therefore, could not open it afresh in subsequent proceedings, it is refrained from dwelling on the matter any further, besides pointing out that the test results themselves do not support the case of the revenue.
It is found that the department had undertaken the re-assessment exercise, purely on the aspect of valuation of the said goods and therefore the question of determining the nature of this imported product was not taken up in the subsequent proceeding by the Revenue. The Appellate Authority had rightly held that the ground’s raised by the Revenue were, in view of the lower authorities Order not maintainable.
There are no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal filed by the Revenue is therefore dismissed.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1043
Continuation of appeal after Order of NCLT approving the resolution plan has been passed - Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 - HELD THAT:- The Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Alok Industries Ltd’s case [2022 (10) TMI 801 - CESTAT MUMBAI] analysed in detail Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and observed that aforesaid Rule 22 should be applicable the moment the successor interest with sufficient rights is appointed by NCLT to make an application for continuation of the proceeding.
In the appellant’s own case, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in R/Tax Appeal No. 32 of 2019 [2022 (8) TMI 1459 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] taking note of the judgments on the subject including that of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghansyam Mishra’s case [2021 (4) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT] held that in such circumstances, the appeal abates.
As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts in a catena of cases that the Tribunal is a creature of the statute; it cannot travel beyond the express powers vested under the Statute or Rules framed under the statute while deciding a statutory Appeal filed before it against the Orders of the prescribed statutory authorities mentioned under the statute. The corollary, any order passed by the Tribunal beyond the vested powers under the statute would be non-est in law.
The appeal abates once the IRP is appointed and/or Resolution plan approved. Consequently, this appeal abates as per Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and this is the relief/Order could be passed as prescribed under the said Rule.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1042
Calling upon to furnish various details, documents and information - challenge to order passed under Section 206 (4) of the Companies Act 2013 - HELD THAT:- The impugned order under Section 206 (4) of the Act should make out a prima facie case as to the information called for, and how the same relates to the business of a Company being carried on for fraudulent and unlawful purpose. In the impugned order, the said linkage is totally absent.
In the impugned order, there is no finding even prima facie of the petitioner’s business being conducted fraudulently or unlawful purpose or in defiance of the provisions of the Act, etc. On the contrary in the affidavit in reply it is stated in the impugned notice respondent no. 1 is not alleging or establishing any fraud against petitioner, but is issued for gathering information and it is an opportunity of being heard. In such a case complying with the preconditions under Section 206 (1) to (3) is mandatory. Therefore, even on this count, initiation of Section 206 (4) of the Act being jurisdictional condition, is not satisfied, and therefore, the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction.
Therefore, without satisfying these preconditions an order of the nature issued and impugned in this petition cannot be sustained.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1041
Seeking to extend the period of Pre-packaged Insolvency Resolution Process(PPIRP) of Kethos Tiles Private Limited for 60 days after the last date of PPIRP - HELD THAT:- It is seen from the application that the Period of 120 days mentioned in the PPIRP came to an end on 03.05.2024. There is no Resolution Plan approved by the CoC till date as per the Application.
A plain reading of Section 54D of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 reveals that a time period of 120 days from the date of commencement of PPIRP is provided in the Act. As per Section 54D(3), if no Resolution Plan is approved by CoC the RP shall file an Application for Termination of PPIRP. Contrary to the Section Resolution Professional in the present matter has filed an Application seeking extension of time - It is seen that the Counsel for the Applicant relied upon Section 12 of the IBC,2016 to be applied in the PPIRP matters.
As no resolution Plan has been approved within the specific time period which is 120 days, it is constrained to order Termination of Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor initiated by the order dated 04.01.2024 - It is also seen that the RP appointed by this Tribunal has misled the Tribunal and has not performed the duties as mandated under the code.
The present Application is Rejected, PPIRP initiated vide order dated 04.01.2024 is hereby terminated and Corporate Debtor is released from rigor of law - Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1040
Levy of Service tax - renting of immovable property - Common Area Maintenance Charges - Power Supply Charges - parking charges - Business Exhibition Service and Event Management Service - CENVAT Credit - submission of appellant not taken into account - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Tthe impugned order has been issued without taking into account any submission made by the appellant. During the course of argument, appellant have produced a chart showing the income from renting as detailed in their balance sheet under various categories and the service tax paid by them.
There seems to be no liability towards service tax un-discharged, except for the liability which is in respect of the two clients namely M/s Future Value Retail Ltd. and M/s Cinemax India Ltd - these clients were required to deposit 50% of the tax dues with the jurisdictional authority and had to give solvent surety in respect of the remaining amount. If the said requirement has been complied with then matter is covered in favour of the appellant and the demand made by impugned order to the extent of rent received from these clients could not have been confirmed in the impugned order.
The case of the appellant was not considered on the basis of the documents and other evidences which were available at the time of investigation and adjudication, even efforts has not been made to reconcile the figures of ST-3 returns with the balance sheet - The exercise which done shows that there may be some variation in the category of services against which service tax has been discharged and demanded in the show cause notice but it is not correct to say that the service tax has not been paid against the said services. Even Board have clarified that change in the classifiable services should not be lead another demand being made but the service tax paid under one category should have been adjusted against the taxable services under which it was due.
As this impugned order has been passed without consideration of the documents which exists at the time of investigation and during adjudication just for the reason that appellant had not putting his case properly before the Original Adjudicating Authority, the order is a non-speaking order, requires to be set aside for this reason only and matter is remitted back to the Original Authority for reconsideration and de-novo adjudication.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1039
Classification of services - Works Contract Service or Construction of Residential Complex/Commercial or Industrial Construction Service - appellant were deemed service provider for construction of service brought under Service tax net with effect from 01.07.2010 - N/N. 01/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 as amended vide N/N. 29/2010-ST dated 22.06.2010 - recovery of service tax with interest and penalties - extended period of limitation.
Classification of services - HELD THAT:- The construction services rendered by the appellants are composite in nature involving materials as well as services. The documentary evidence produced by the appellant in form of VAT Audit Report, payment of VAT/Sale Tax, copy of agreements with developer and sub-contractors clearly prove the said fact.
The Tribunal in the case of REAL VALUE PROMOTERS PVT. LTD., CEEBROS PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, PRIME DEVELOPERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI [2018 (9) TMI 1149 - CESTAT CHENNAI] had analysed the issue regarding demand of service tax under construction of residential complex services, commercial or industrial construction service and construction of complex service. The Tribunal has held that prior to 1-6-2007, levy of service tax can be under the above categories only for contracts which are purely for services. That after 1-6-2007, the above categories would be applicable only if the contracts are purely services and which are not composite contracts. Further, it was held that after 1-6-2007, demand in respect of composite contracts would fall under works contract service only.
The decision in Real Value Promoters is squarely applicable to the facts of the case in present appeals. The demand made under construction of residential complex service/construction of Commercial or Industrial Construction cannot therefore sustain.
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The payment of tax under works contract service also disclosed by the appellant along with ST-3 return filed before the Jurisdictional Authority. In this circumstances charge of suppression or willful misstatement do not survive against the Appellant. On the basis of the above fact, extended period of limitation is also not invokable in the present matter. Therefore the demand in the impugned order is not sustainable not only on merit but also on limitation.
The impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1038
Process amounting to manufacture or not - activity undertaken by the appellant to convert the waste oils which is neither fit for use nor marketable as the primary product into lubricating oils which is not only fit for use - time limitation - benefit of SSI exemption under N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003.
HELD THAT:- In the case of Servo-Med Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai [2015 (5) TMI 292 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “manufacture takes place on the application of one or more processes. Each process may lead to a change in the goods, but every change does not amount to manufacture. There must be something more- there must be transformation by which something new and different comes into being, that is there must now emerge an article which has a distinctive name, character or use.”
In the case of CEE JEE Lubricants Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Cochin [2019 (8) TMI 1173 - CESTAT BANGALORE] wherein it is held that “We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and peruse the records, it is undisputed that the appellant procured used oil from different sources. The processing under taken by the appellant is in form of Vacuum distillation, Centrifuging removal of moisture, carbon and other impurities. The entire tenor of the adjudicating authority while confirming the demand is only on the ground that the used oil was unfit for use as lubricating oils were made fit for the use by the appellant by refining or re-processing the same and hence, characteristic and the use has changed. Due to which Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 27 gets attracted and the said activity becomes manufacture.
The various decisions and the CBEC Board Circular, it is clear that Note 9 of Chapter 27 is not applicable to the present case. Therefore, the question of whether reprocessing of used waste oils into reprocessed oils that have marketable would amount to manufacture is answered in the negative concluding that it does not amounts to manufacture. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed in favour of the appellant.
Whether the appellant is entitled to avail benefit of SSI Exemption under Notification No.8/2003- CE dated 01.03.2003? - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner (A) has held that since the above process amounts to manufacture, the value needs to be included while computing the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods for the period 2010 to 2011. Since, it is already held that the above processes undertaken by the appellant do not amount to manufacture and they are not liable to pay excise duty, therefore, the question of including the value of those goods for computation of the aggregate value of the clearances is not sustainable. Accordingly, the appellant is eligible for the benefit of the SSI exemption under N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003.
Appeal are partially allowed by way of remand to the original authority only for limited purpose of verification of the fact that whether the appellants have discharged duty on the reprocessed oil cleared as ‘lubricants’.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1037
Dishonour of Cheque - acquittal of accused - locus standi to file the criminal complaints being the Branch Manager of the complainant-federation - HELD THAT:- It transpires that the complaints were filed by Sh. A.N. Pillai in his capacity as the Branch Manager of the complainant government undertaking in the month of January, 1995 whereas the power of attorney was executed in his favour by the complainant federation on 28.06.1995, proved on record as Ex.P5. Vide the said power of attorney, the Managing Director of the complainant federation appointed the Branch Manager as the general attorney. However, there was no clause in the in the power of attorney dated 28.06.1995, executed in favour of the Branch Manager, ratifying the acts of Branch Manager retrospectively. It comes to the fore that on the date the complaints were filed by Sh. A.N. Pillai, Branch Manager, acting on behalf of the complainant federation, there was no such power of attorney duly authorizing the Branch Manager to file the said complaints.
The power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the order of acquittal on the basis of re-appreciation of the evidence is subject to the settled law that where two views are possible and out of the two, one points towards the innocence of the accused, the view which favours the accused should prevail over the other pointing towards his guilt. Furthermore, the trial Court has the additional advantage of closely observing the prosecution witnesses and their demeanour, while deciding about the reliability of the version of prosecution witnesses.
A two Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chandrappa [2007 (2) TMI 704 - SUPREME COURT] has laid down the parameters with regard to the power of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal and held that 'If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.'
This Court finds that learned counsel for the appellant has been unable to point out any perversity in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar - Appeal dismissed.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1036
Nil returns filed by mistake, but tax in respect of the year 2017 - 2018 has been remitted by the petitioner to the electronic cash ledger - HELD THAT:- Though it is stated that the reply filed by the tax payer is not acceptable, no reason, whatsoever, is forthcoming for not accepting the reply.
The learned Government Pleader seeks time to get instructions - Post on 07.06.2024.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1035
Classification of supply - composite supply within the meaning of Section 8(a) of the CGST Act/JGST Act read with Section 2(30) read with Section 2(90) or the supply is mixed supply within the meaning of Section 8(b) read with Section 2(74) of the Act - Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, a composite supply principally for transportation of Power Plant Ash up to distance of 50 km is sought to be taxed under Heading 9997 i.e. other services (Textile, Washing, Cleaning, Dying) and Heading 99671 i.e. Cargo Handling Service (Container handling service, Customs House Agent Service, Other Cargo and Baggage Handling Service, Cleaning and Forwarding Services). After going through the show-cause and the factual aspects, which are undisputed; it prima facie appears that the Petitioner has been able to establish a prima facie case of abuse of process of law and lack of jurisdiction.
Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- The impugned show cause notice has been issued under Section 74 of the Act. This Court in the case of Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. UOI [2024 (1) TMI 1158 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] following judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of International Merchandising Co. Vs. CST [2022 (12) TMI 556 - SUPREME COURT], has held that where case involves interpretation issue, extended period of limitation is not invokable.
The judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of National Building Construction Company Vs. UOI [2020 (12) TMI 619 - DELHI HIGH COURT] is under the old Service Tax regime where power was vested in every Central Excise officer U/s 73 of Service Tax unlike the “proper officer” to whom power is vested under the CGST Act/JGST Act, hence, the said case is distinguishable.
Relegating the Petitioner to alternative remedy will be a palpable in-justice - the instant writ application is maintainable - List this case for further hearing on merit on 16th July, 2024.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1034
Validity of notice u/s 65 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - GST Audit - writ petition was filed on the ground that Central GST authorities cannot initiate proceedings in spite of the same subject matter - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the impugned audit notice, it is clear that such notice was issued while being fully aware of Section 6(2)(b) - Provided the subject matter of audit is not the same subject matter as proceedings initiated by the State GST authorities, there is no restriction in the statute.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1033
Attachment of Bank Accounts for recovery of GST dues - Rejection of request for payment of tax due in installments - in-action on the part of the Government in releasing the bills payable - HELD THAT:- There is force in the contention of the petitioner that a blanket attachment of the bank account of the petitioner – company would bring the operations of the company to a grinding halt. The company would default in paying the salaries and other operational dues. As per Section 80 of GST Act, the Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the time for payment or allow payment of any amount due under this Act in monthly instalments not exceeding twenty four.
The ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is permitted to pay the tax arrears in six monthly installments starting from 15th April, 2024 and ending 15th September, 2024.
The impugned proceedings dated 11.03.2024 are hereby set aside, further the Form GST DRC-13 dated 25.01.2024 issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioner’s banker Canara Bank SME, Kukatpally Branch, Hyderabad is also set aside. It is made clear that the petitioner shall repay the tax arrears in terms of the above observations of this Court - the writ petition is disposed off.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1032
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - opportunity for personal hearing not provided - HELD THAT:- The impugned order is certainly passed in contravention of Section 29 (2) of the GST Act, 2017 to the extent of passing the same without giving of an opportunity of being heard.
The orders passed by this Court in similarly placed matters the principles of natural justice have not been followed by the respondents before passing the impugned order. The impugned order dated 25.02.2023 is hereby set aside - the ends of Justice would be met if the writ petition is disposed off with a direction to the respondents to consider the reply/representation of the petitioner seeking restoration of the GST registration within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such reply/representation of the petitioner.
The writ petition is disposed off without costs.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1031
Violation of principles of natural justice - personal hearing was not offered after receipt of the petitioner's reply - breach of the mandatory requirement of sub-section (4) of Section 75 of TNGST Act - HELD THAT:- The documents on record include the petitioner's reply on 20.06.2023 and a subsequent e-mail of 23.08.2023 along with the attachments thereto. Such reply was referred to in the impugned order and treated as a reply to the show cause notice. Although the petitioner is not blameless in as much as much as the petitioner did not reply to the intimation within a reasonable time or reply to the show cause notice, in view of breach of the mandatory requirement of sub-section (4) of Section 75, the impugned order calls for interference.
The impugned order dated 09.10.2023 is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to submit any documents in support of the reply within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1030
Violation of principles of natural justice - no personal hearing was provided to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- On examining the show cause notice dated 25.09.2023, it is evident that a personal hearing was offered to the petitioner on 10.10.2023. While the petitioner asserts that two replies were issued on 30.09.2023 and 04.10.2023, the respondent denies receipt thereof and there is no evidence that such replies were uploaded on the GST portal. Hence, the petitioner cannot be absolved of all responsibility for the current state of affairs - it is noticeable that no personal hearing was offered in the second show cause notice dated 26.12.2023 and the impugned order was issued one day later on 27.12.2023. Thus, the petitioner was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to respond to such show cause notice and be heard in person as required by statute.
The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration subject to the petitioner remitting 5% of the disputed tax demand within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1029
Extension of stay beyond 365 days by ITAT - interpretation of the provisions of the third proviso to Section 254 (2A) and the amendment incorporated to the said provision by Finance Act, 2008 (with effect from 1 August 2008) by the words “even if delay in disposing of appeal is not attributable to assessee” were added
HELD THAT:- The constitutional validity of such amendment was challenged by Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd. The Delhi High Court considering the rival contentions, had struck down the impugned part of the third proviso to Section 254 (2A), which did not permit extension of stay of the said order beyond 365 days, even if the assessee was not responsible for delay in appeal. Such decision of the Delhi High Court was assailed by the revenue before the Supreme Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. [2021 (4) TMI 369 - SUPREME COURT]
In view of the authoritative pronouncement of Supreme Court interpreting the third proviso to Section 254 (2A) inserted by the Finance Act, 2008, we find that the question of law as urged for consideration, stands squarely answered by such decision of the Supreme Court.
The appeal, therefore, cannot be entertained. It is accordingly disposed of upholding the orders passed by the tribunal.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1028
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 r.w.s.144B as preceded by a proceeding u/s 148A - Alternative Remedy through Appeal - petitioner did not respond to the notice u/s 148A (b), in fact, when an intimation was given to the assessee in accordance with the procedure laid down u/s 144B vide notice the petitioner did not seek for documents - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, in this case, it is noticed that the order of assessment issued u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the said Act was preceded by a proceeding u/s 148A of the said Act and not only a notice u/s 148A (b) was issued but an order was passed u/s 148A (d) of the said Act.
The petitioner, however, had not responded to the said notice u/s 148A (b) of the said Act. The disclosures made in the order of assessment were all disclosed in the notice u/s 148A (b) of the said Act and in the order u/s 148A (d) of the said Act.
Be that as it may, since the petitioner has an alternative remedy in the form of an appeal, all these points can be agitated by the petitioner before the appellate authority and if the petitioner files an appeal before the appellate authority and makes an application for disclosure of the documents and other information, it shall be open to the appellate authority to consider the same, subject to the appeal being registered upon condonation of delay, in accordance with law.
-
2024 (6) TMI 1027
Denial of deductions for applications and accumulation u/s 11 - delay in filing Form No. 10B - HELD THAT:- We after hearing the rival submission of the parties and perusing the material available on record find that in the present appeal, the ld. CIT(E), Kolkata condoning the delay occurred in filing the audit report in Form No. 10B.
Accordingly, we set aside the issue to the file of assessing officer, ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru to take into account the above referred order allowing deductions for applications and accumulation u/s 11 of the Act as claimed by the assessee for the assessment year under consideration. In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.
............
|
9911796707
