|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 441 to 460 of 2170 Records
-
2019 (4) TMI 1736
Assessment framed u/s 153A - AY 2013-14- deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e) - whether incriminating material found or seized during the course of search indicating the alleged addition? - HELD THAT:- We note that the assessment for the year under consideration was not pending as on the date of search carried out on 3rd March, 2016. Therefore, the question arises whether the AO could make the addition in the proceedings under section 153A in the absence of any incriminating material found or seized during the course of search. An identical issue has been considered by us in the connecting appeal in case of Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia [2019 (5) TMI 96 - ITAT JAIPUR] and held that the invocation of Section 153A by the Revenue was without any legal basis as there was no incriminating material qua each of those AYs.
Addition made by the AO in the absence of any incriminating material is not sustainable in law. Therefore, the same is deleted. Since we have decided the issue on the validity of the addition in favour of the assessee, therefore we do not propose to go into the merits of the addition made by the AO under section 2(22)(e).
Addition made u/s 2(22)(e) - AY 2016-17- HELD THAT:- While considering the identical issue in case of Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia (supra), we have held that the amount given by the company was not for trading or business purposes of the said company but this amount was given to the assessee for making the investment in the shares of the company though the said investment was required for taking the loan from the bank. It was the duty of the promoters as a shareholder of the said company to infuse more capital in the said company, therefore the fund of the said company used by the assessee is nothing but the loan/advance in terms of section 2(22)(e).
Since the facts as well as the issue is identical, therefore, in view of our finding in case of Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia(supra), we do not find any error or illegality in the order of ld. CIT (A) qua this issue.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1735
Grant of pensionary benefits - treating respondent (employee) as a regular employee - whether the High Court was justified in allowing the respondent's writ petition in part and was, therefore, justified in issuing the direction now impugned in this appeal by the State? - HELD THAT:- We are constrained to allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the High Court for deciding the respondent's writ petition afresh on merits in accordance with law.
The need to remand the case to the High Court has occasioned because from the perusal of the impugned order, we find that it is an unreasoned order. In other words, the High Court neither discussed the issues arising in the case, nor dealt with any of the submissions urged by the parties and nor assigned any reason as to why it has allowed the writ petition and granted the reliefs to the writ petitioner which were declined by the Tribunal - This Court has consistently laid down that every judicial or/and quasijudicial order passed by the Court/Tribunal/Authority concerned, which decides the lis between the parties, must be supported with the reasons in support of its conclusion.
The case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh, out of which this appeal arises, for its disposal in accordance with law.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1734
Reopening of assessment - notice issued u/s 148(2) - as argued that the approval granted by the Pr. CIT- 7, New Delhi was bad in law as it was granted without due application of mind - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs N. C. Cables Ltd. reported in [2017 (1) TMI 1036 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held the mere appending of the expression “approved” says nothing, Commissioner of Income Tax has to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with the noting put up, and at the same time, satisfaction has to be recorded of the given case which can be reflected in the briefest possible manner.
Approval was granted by the Pr. CIT-7, New Delhi by noting “Yes I am satisfied” shows that the approval was given in a mechanical manner without recording proper satisfaction after due application of mind. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs N. C. Cables Ltd. (supra) has held that mere appending of the expression “approved” says noting. It is not as if the CIT has to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with the noting put up.
At the same time, satisfaction has to be recorded of the given case which can be reflected in the briefest possible manner. In the present case, the exercise appears to have been ritualistic and formal rather than meaningful, which is the rationale for the safeguard of an approval by a higher ranking officer. For these reasons, the Court is satisfied that the findings by the ITAT cannot be distributed.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1733
Penalty u/s 11AC - Whether the penalty under Section 11AC which is mandatory in nature can be reduced or waived by the Hon'ble CESTAT? - HELD THAT:- List the matters after pleadings are complete.
Interim order dated 1.03.2019 to continue till further orders.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1732
Admissibility of petition - initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Corporate Debtor - Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 - precise case of the Petitioner is that the total amount in default due to the financial creditor by the corporate debtor as on 18.07.2018 is ₹ 75,52,68,314.29/-along with future interest and as well as penal interest per annum - HELD THAT:- It is pertinent to mention here that the Code requires the Adjudicating Authority to only ascertain and record satisfaction in a summary adjudication as to the occurrence of default before admitting the application. The material on record clearly goes to show that respondent had availed the loan facilities which were duly disbursed and it has committed default in repayment of the outstanding loan amount.
It is thus patent that all requirements of Section 7 of the Code for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process by a Financial Creditor stand fulfilled. In that regard, the application is complete as per the requirements of Section 7 (2) of the Code and other conditions prescribed by Rule 4 (1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. There is overwhelming evidence to prove default and name of the resolution professional has also been clearly specified.
Petition admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1731
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D(2)(ii) & 8D(2)(iii) - suo moto disallowance by assessee - no exempt income - HELD THAT:- Once there is no exempt income, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ballarpur Industries Limited [2016 (10) TMI 1039 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. Respectfully following the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we delete the disallowance and affirm the order of CIT(A) in respect to deletion made by him of the expenses relatable to exempt income under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii). We also delete the disallowance suo moto offered by assessee because there is no exempt income and once there is no exempt income no disallowance can be made relatable to exempt income by invoking the provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1730
Liquidation of Corporate Debtor - appointment of liquidator for Corporate Debtor - submission of written consent to act as the liquidator for the purposes of liquidation of the Corporate Debtor - continuation of the Applicant as the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor - initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Section 7 of the Code read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authorities) Rules, 2016.
HELD THAT:- We feel appropriate to confirm and approve the CoC's Resolution dated 20.02.2019 recommending for Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor Company and to pass an order for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor Compan
The supremacy of CoC and their commercial wisdom cannot be questioned. It is also observed that National Company Law Tribunal has no jurisdiction and authority to analyze or evaluate the commercial decision of the CoC to enquire into the justness of the rejection of the Resolution Plan by the dissenting financial creditors.
It is hereby ordered that the Corporate Debtor Company, viz., ABG Shipyard Limited, shall go into liquidation under Section 33(2) of the Code.
The Resolution Professional Mr. Sundaresh Bhatt appointed for the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Chapter II of the Code shall act as the Liquidator for the purpose of Liquidation in pursuant to Section 34(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 as approved by the CoC in their 22nd Meeting held on 01.03.2019 and his fees shall be as per the Schedule as contained in the IBC, 2016 - All the powers of the Board of Directors, Key Managerial Personnel and the Directors of the Corporate Debtor Company, as the case may be, shall cease to have effect and shall be vested in the Liquidator pursuant to Section 34(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - That the personnel of the Corporate Debtor Company shall extend all assistance and co-operation to the Liquidator as may be required by him in managing the affairs of the Corporate Debtor Company.
Application disposed off.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1729
Detention of goods - grievance of appellant is essentially that even if the reassessment had been completed that did not result in deciding the issue as to whether the initial action of detention of the goods was legal and proper - HELD THAT:- Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the contention, we deem it appropriate to relegate the parties before the High Court by restoring the Writ Petition to its original number for reconsideration on all aspects.
The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1728
Principal of natural justice - Petition filed for arbitration as well as insolvency - proceeding u/s 9 of the I&B Code, 2016 and application u/s 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - only one heard and disposed off other dismissed - HELD THAT:- Perusal of the submissions recorded in para 8 of the impugned order it is evident that arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner has only been heard by the Tribunal only on the application under Section 8 of the Act, 1996. However, the corporate insolvency resolution process initiated against the respondent under Section 9 of the Code itself has been dismissed. In other words, the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing with regard to merits of the claim of the petitioner under Section 9 of the Code. Therefore, it is not necessary for this court to examine the rival contentions made on both the sides. The impugned order is hereby quashed.
The tribunal is directed to decide the application preferred by the respondent under Section 8 of the Act as well as issue with regard to entertaining the proceeding under Section 9 of the Code by a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from today.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1727
Disallowance u/s 263 - disallowance of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) - HELD THAT:- We find that the issue of disallowance of weighted deduction stands allowed by the Ld. CIT (A) , Tribunal , Hon’ble High Court in SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. [2017 (8) TMI 933 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and Hon`ble Supreme Court [2018 (7) TMI 1454 - SC ORDER] holding that merely because the prescribed authority failed to send intimation In Form No. 3CL, would not be reason enough to deprive the assessee`s claim of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. In view of this matter, respectively following the order of above mentioned authorities, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT (A), accordingly, same is upheld. Exconsequenti, the Ground No. 1.1 to 1.5 of the Revenue are therefore, dismissed.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1726
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - functional similarity - HELD THAT:- ECLERX SERVICES LTD. (ECLERX) - As relying on RAMPGREEN SOLUTIONS PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [2015 (8) TMI 931 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Eclerx to be excluded because of KPO services which are high end services involving specialized knowledge and domain expertise
ACROPETAL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (ACROPETAL) - balance sheet of Acropetal, available at pages 182 to 261 of the paper book, shows that its healthcare segment is not a BPO. So we are of the considered view that ld. DRP has rightly excluded the Acropetal from the final set of comparables.
TP adjustment cannot exceed the amount of margin retained by the AE - HELD THAT:- So, following the decision rendered by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in HCL Technologies BPO Ltd. vs. ACIT [2015 (7) TMI 477 - ITAT DELHI] we are of the considered view that ld. DRP has rightly held that transfer pricing adjustment should not exceed the amount of margin retained by the AE. Consequently, findings returned by the ld. DRP are hereby confirmed - Decided against revenue.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1725
Request for adjournment dismissed - assessee through their Counsel filed an application requesting for adjournment because written submissions and paper book is under preparation and compilation - assessee has filed the appeal online. However, only Form-35 is available on the website of the Department which has been downloaded by the Office. The impugned penalty order and copy of the demand notice is not available on record - It is noted that no Power of Attorney and other details have been produced - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the CIT(A). Assessee submitted that it was the first date of hearing of the appeal, on which, no adjournment has been granted to the assessee. Therefore, no proper opportunity of hearing of the appeal have been granted. He has further submitted that it is appeal against the quantum assessment order.
CIT(A) has wrongly mentioned in the impugned order that impugned penalty order is not available on the website of the department. He has referred to electronic appeal filed with Ld. CIT(A), in which, details of the challan have been mentioned and in the annexures, copy of the demand along with order appealed, have been filed with the O/o. CIT(A). These facts clearly show that there was no fault attributable to the assessee in filing the relevant documents along with the appeal papers. The Ld. CIT(A) on the very first date of hearing of the appeal proceeded ex-parte without giving proper opportunity to the assessee to prepare the case. The request for adjournment in writing was made seeking only 20 days time. These facts clearly show that impugned order is wholly unjustified and is liable to be set aside. The Ld. CIT(A) did not give reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
We set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal of assessee to the file of CIT(A)-1, Noida, with a direction to re-decide the appeal of assessee on merits strictly as per Law, by giving reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1724
Scope of Moratorium Order - the Regulatory Authorities covered under the ‘Moratorium’ as provided under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or not - whether on failure to perform the duties, if any, penal order is passed for penalty imposed on the ‘Corporate Debtor’ or any recovery can be made in terms of Section 28A of the ‘SEBI Act, 1992’? - HELD THAT:- As per Section 14 (1) (a) of the ‘I&B Code’, the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the ‘Corporate Debtor’ including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority is prohibited - Section 28A of the SEBI Act, 1992 including sub-Section (3) therein is in contravention of Section 14 of the ‘I&B Code’.
Section 28A of the ‘SEBI Act, 1992’ being inconsistent with Section 14 of the ‘I&B Code’, we hold that Section 14 of the ‘I&B Code’ will prevail over Section 28A of the ‘SEBI Act, 1992’ and ‘Securities Exchange Board of India’ cannot recover any amount including the penalty from the ‘Corporate Debtor’. The ‘Bombay Stock Exchange’ for the same very reason cannot take any coercive steps against the ‘Corporate Debtor’ nor can threaten the ‘Corporate Debtor’ for suspension of trading of shares.
In view of Section 18 of the ‘I&B Code’, the ‘Interim Resolution Professional’ while taking control and custody of any asset including the tangible and intangible assets, cannot sell the shares of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ during the period of ‘Moratorium’ except in accordance with the provisions of the ‘I&B Code’ and with the approval of the ‘Committee of Creditors’. Therefore, dealing with the shares of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ by the ‘Bombay Stock Exchange’ during the period of ‘Moratorium’ normally does not arise. The shares can be transferred only in the manner prescribed under the ‘I&B Code’ and following requirements framed under the ‘SEBI Act, 1992’ and the ‘Companies Act, 2013’.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1723
Disallowance of expenses on consumption and replacement of stores and spares - capital expenditure OR revenue expenditure - HELD THAT:- CIT (Appeals) on the above facts found that the expenditure claimed as revenue expenditure is in respect of components of the machinery which cannot be treated as the independent machinery in itself as they are not capable of functioning independently. It was further held that the chemical and fertilizer plant was very large plant within which again there are large machines and within the machine there are components requiring replacement due to wear and tear, that was different plants within the fertilizers and chemical plant. Reference was also made to past history of disallowance wherein the Tribunal had set aside the issue to the AO for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2002-03, who in turn accepted the explanation furnished by the appellant in de novo assessment proceedings and no additions were made. On perusal of the facts noted by the CIT (Appeals) as well as affirmed by the Tribunal, it is clear that question (a) raised by the revenue is a pure question of fact and in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, does not give rise to any question of law.
Loss on allotment of fertilizer bonds and addition on account of loss on actual sale of fertilizer bonds - capital or business loss - HELD THAT:- Tribunal, on appreciation of facts and considering the history of allotment of bonds by the Government of India in lieu of subsidy amount, held that the finding of the Assessing Officer that from the date of allotment when the market value of the bond is less then it is the notional loss, is not correct. It was also found that as a matter of fact that in assessment year 2008-09, the Assessing Officer has already allowed such loss as revenue loss.
It emerges from records that on the date of allotment the bonds were received in lieu of subsidy which was the additional sale price receivable from GOI. The assessee had offered to tax the subsidy receivable as part of sale price. The realization of additional sales price by way of subsidy in the form of fertilizer bond does not make bonds an investment because the bonds were never acquired by the assessee as investment or capital but as debt and also shown as current assets. Therefore, the loss suffered on allotment of bonds and actual sale of the bonds cannot be considered as capital loss but has to be allowed as business loss under section 28 or section 37 of the Act.
With regard to the loss suffered on allotment of bonds and actual loss on sale of bonds the contention of the Assessing Officer was that after allotment the assessee company continued to hold bonds and, therefore, it takes characteristic of investment. However, holding period does not decide nature of bonds as investment. In view of the background of facts of getting bonds it clearly indicates that the bonds were not acquired as investments.
CIT (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal held that the bonds were received in lieu of subsidy which was additional sale price received from the Government of India and the assessee company had offered such amount to tax accordingly as part of the sale price and, therefore, the realisation to the additional sale price by way of subsidy in the form of fertilizer bonds does not make bond an investment, because such bonds were never acquired by the assessee as investment for capital but the same were received as debt and also shown as current assets. Accordingly, the loss on actual sale of the bonds cannot be considered as capital loss but the same was required to be allowed as business loss.
TDS u/s 194H - disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) in respect of commission payment - HELD THAT:- Explanation (1) to section 194H defines “Commission or Brokerage” which includes any payment received or receivable, directly or indirectly by a person acting on behalf of another person for services rendered (not being professional services) or for any services in the course of buying and selling of goods or in relation to any transaction relating to any asset, valuable article or thing, not being securities. On the facts of the present case, as per the tripartite agreement entered into between the assessee and the dealer, there is no service provided by the dealer to the assessee in the course of buying or selling goods, inasmuch as, the assessee directly sells goods to the dealer and the dealer makes the payment after collecting it from the consumers and, therefore, it is a transaction on principal to principal basis and, therefore, the payment made by the dealer is not liable for any deduction of tax by the assessee company. Therefore, in the facts of the case, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) cannot be applied as the dealer cannot be said to be a commission agent of the assessee company. It is not possible to state that the Tribunal has committed any legal error so as to warrant interference
-
2019 (4) TMI 1722
Bogus purchases - purchases have been made from one party in grey market and bills have been obtained from another party i.e. accommodation entry provider - HELD THAT:- It is no doubt true that cheques issued by the assessee in the name of M/s. Meet Enterprises had been deposited in the account of M/s. Meet Enterprises, Ghaziabad instead of Meet Enterprises, Haridwar. But the sales made by the assessee have not been doubted by the Assessing Officer. It is impossible to make sales without corresponding purchases. In the stock register corresponding to the sales, purchases have been duly recorded. In the circumstances of no irregularity observed in the inventory record, entire purchases of ₹ 32,76,741/- cannot be disallowed .
It would be inappropriate to deny the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee. We are of the opinion that at best it would be a case that purchases have been made from one party in grey market and bills have been obtained from another party i.e. accommodation entry provider. Thus, the purchases themselves cannot be said to be bogus as the same is duly recorded in the books of account of the appellant and such books stands accepted even in the impugned order of assessment.
In the instant case, the assessee is engaged in dealing in MS Bar (Iron/Steel Product) and has shown gross profit rate of 5.22%. We find that in the case of Sh. Sanjay H. Shah, Mumbai Vs. Income Tax Officer [2018 (2) TMI 1632 - ITAT MUMBAI] who was also engaged in trading of Iron & Steel product, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 5% of the total alleged bogus purchases - thus we direct the learned Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to 5% of the impugned purchase - Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1721
Scope of Financial Creditor - whether appellant come within the meaning of ‘Financial Creditor’? - benefit of assignment of shares which have been pledged - HELD THAT:- The assignor and the ‘Corporate Debtor’ executed a ‘Pledge Agreement’ on 10th January, 2012 whereby the ‘Corporate Debtor’ pledged 40,160 shares of ‘Gondwana Engineers Ltd.’ in favour of the assignor as a security inter alia for repayment of the Financial Facility - Thereafter, by ‘Assignment Agreement’ dated 30th December, 2013, ‘L&T Infrastructure Finance Company Limited’ assigned all rights, title and interest in the Financial Facility including any security interest therein, in favour of the Appellant- ‘Phoenix ARC Private Limited’. In view of such Assignment Agreement dated 30th December, 2013, the Appellant- ‘Phoenix ARC Private Limited’ claimed to be the ‘Financial Creditor’.
Section 5(7) defines ‘Financial Creditor’ and Section 5(8) defines ‘Financial Debt’. From the ‘pledged agreement’, it is clear that the shares have been assigned and in case the shares or any part of them became subject matter of an attachment by a Court or otherwise tainted for any reason, the ‘Corporate Debtor’ is liable to replace the same with other securities acceptable to the Assignor. The ‘Pledge Agreement’ ensures the benefit of the Assignor and its successor in title.
The ‘pledge of shares’ in question do not amount to “disbursement of any amount against the consideration for the time value of money” and it do not fall within subclause (f) of sub-section (8) of Section 5 as suggested by the learned counsel for the Appellant - appeal dismissed.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1720
Non-compliance with the pre-deposit - Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- The only relief we can give to the appellant is that provided they deposit 50% of the amount representing 7.5% of the total tax effect in cash with the authority and provided they secure the balance amount by furnishing a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the tribunal, the tribunal will proceed to hear out the appeal in accordance with law.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1719
Levy of penalty u/s 271AAB - penalty was initiated by AO u/s 271AAB(1)(a) whereas while levying penalty, it was levied u/s 271AAB(1)(c) - assessee surrendered income during the search action carried out at his premises u/s 132 - AO had made the additional disallowance u/s 14A in addition to the suomotu disallowance returned by the assessee - HELD THAT:- It is quite apparent that the issue of disallowance of expenditure on the aforesaid three issues was a debatable one and in fact in the light of the various decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts, the assessee has a fair case on merits and that it cannot be said that there was any intentional act on the part of the assessee to claim any inadmissible expenditure, rather, the assessee had put a bonafide claim of the allowance/expenditure on these issues.
What we wish to convey through the aforesaid discussion is that even despite certain disallowances made by the AO it cannot be said that assessee had claimed any inadmissible expenditure which would fall within the definition of “undisclosed income” as defined under the provisions of section 271AAB.
Except the aforesaid disallowance made by the AO on debatable issues, there is no case of the Department in respect of any inadmissible expenditure claimed by the assessee which would cover the surrendered income of ₹ 14 cores.
From the facts on the file, it is established that the aforesaid surrender of ₹ 14 crores was based on the mere statement of the assessee and nothing incriminating material which would constitute “undisclosed income” as per the provisions of section 271AAB was detected or found during the search action. In view of the various case laws as discussed above, the aforesaid amount for ₹14 cores would not fall in the definition of ‘undisclosed income’ as defined under section 271AAB and, hence, the penalty is not leviable on the said amount under the provisions of section 271AAB.
So far as the surrendered amount of ₹ 39.99 lacs is concerned, same was offered on account of profits on stock found short during the search action. Admittedly, the stock was found short during the search action. In fact, the Assessing officer apart from the above surrender of ₹ 39.99 lacs has made further addition of ₹ 2.58 cores on this issue. It is apparent that the aforesaid profit on short stock were not accounted for by the assessee but was only detected during the search action. The assessee has substantiated the manner of earning of the said income which include the surrender income of ₹ 39.99 lacs, hence, penalty @ 10% is leviable on the aforesaid amount as per the provisions of section 271AAB (1)(a).
The penalty in this case is restricted to 10% of the surrendered income on account of stock found short as per the provisions of section 271AAB (1)(a). The remaining part of the penalty is ordered to be deleted.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1718
Offence under PMLA - attachment orders - HELD THAT:- No reply to the application has been filed. I.O. after taking the instructions from JD makes the statement to withdraw its communications issued to the banks which were sent by the letter dated 13th January, 2019, 6th August, 2018 and 21st August, 2018 and January, 2019. Let the said letters be withdrawn by the appellant within 10 days. The undertaking given by I.O. is duly accepted.
It is also directed that the Bank shall act upon accordingly once the said letters are withdrawn.
List the appeal and interim application for direction on 29th April, 2019.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1717
Advance Authorisation scheme - petitioner applied for issuance of an advance authorisation for duty free import of goods into India against supplies to be made to the purchasers - the petitioner was required to export a prescribed quantity of the said products for validly redeeming the Licence - HELD THAT:- We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
SLP dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
