|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 441 to 460 of 2184 Records
-
2018 (5) TMI 1746
Unable to upload his GST TRAN-1 & TRAN-2 forms to avail input tax credit - Held that:- Complete procedure has been prescribed for redressal of grievance which the petitioner has raised in this writ petition, particularly of non-uploading of FORM TRAN -1 due to technical glitches - Apart from this, the State Government – Commissioner, Central Excise / GST has issued order dated 5-4-2018 in which Nodal Officers have already been appointed by the State Government - the petitioner is directed to approach the Nodal Officer of Dhamtari i.e. Assistant Commissioner, State GST, Raipur Circle-7 for redressal of his grievance - Petition disposed off.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1745
Penalty imposed u/s.271D - violation of the provisions of Section 269SS/269T - Held that:- From the record we found that AO has levied penalty u/s.271D for accepting loan by way of Journal entries. The Assessing Officer had placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd. (2012 (6) TMI 358 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT). It is not disputed that in this judgment it was held that there was violation of the provisions of S. 269T of the Act in a case where the loan was repaid by way of a journal entry entailing levy of penalty u/s. 271E. However, at the same time it was also held that levy of penalty could be avoided on showing reasonable cause. In the premises, levy of penalty u/ss. 271D of the Act is not automatic, but the genuineness or otherwise of the reasons due to which repayment was made by journal entry has to be considered judiciously.
Hon’ble jurisdictions! High Court in their judgment and order dated 06.02.2018 in the case of CIT v. Ajinath Hi-Tech Builders Pvt Ltd. and others [2018 (2) TMI 603 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] as also held that prior to the judgment in CIT v. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd. there were series of orders on this point holding that journal entry would not fall foul of S. 269SS of the Act. Since the judgment in CIT v. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd. was rendered on 12.06.2012, it was held, that the assessee could have had a bonafide belief prior to that date that there was no violation of S. 269SS of the Act in accepting loan by journal entry. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2018 (5) TMI 1744
Addition u/s 68 - Assessments u/s 153A - addition on account of loan shown to have been received by the assessee from PTU - Held that:- In view of section 68, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year the same may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, not satisfactory.
In view of the factual and legal position discussed above, it is crystal clear that PTU provided only accommodation entries to the assessee in the garb of unsecured loan of ₹ 1 crore which, in our considered opinion, has been rightly added by the authorities below. We, therefore, countenance the impugned order on this score.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1743
Disallowance of nomination fees - allowable business expenditure - Held that:- When the clients of the assessee have insisted the garment suppliers to purchase the hanger from the assessee, it is quite natural that they would expect some benefit out of the transaction. Further the clients of the assessee are in a position to control certain business policies of the garment suppliers because they buy bulk garments from them. Therefore when they charge a nomination fee from the assessee on turnover basis, it is genuine business expenditure incurred by the assessee and cannot be brushed aside by stating that such expenditure is unnecessary.
In the case of the assessee, all the entities are aliens to each other but for their business connections. Further it is not for the Ld.Revenue Authorities to decide as to what expenditure is to be incurred by the assessee and what not. In these situations, we fully agree with the submission of the Ld.AR that the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders supra is relevant to the case of the assessee. For the above stated reasons we are of the view that the disallowance made by the Ld.AO towards nomination fee which was further confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) is not justifiable - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1742
TDS u/s 195 - disallowance made on account of export commission paid to overseas agents u/s.40(a)(i) - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case [2016 (9) TMI 107 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] For application of Section 195, it is sine qua non that the payment to no- resident must have an element of income liable to be taxed under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. On the facts of this case, as we have already concluded, no part of the remittance to the commission agent was taxable in India. The assessee was, therefore, not under any obligation, on the facts of this case, to deduct any tax at source from the commission payments to the non-residents. Since there was no obligation to deduct tax at source, the very foundation of impugned disallowance under section 40(a)(i) ceases to hold good in law. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2018 (5) TMI 1741
Validity of Section 139AA - Requirement of AADHAAR number in filing return of income and obtaining PAN - Failure to link Aadhaar with PAN - Held that:- When Binoy Viswam (2017 (6) TMI 478 - SUPREME COURT OF IND) was decided, the Court was conscious of the issue as to whether the fundamental right to privacy existed or otherwise was moot; the Larger Bench of the Judges is seized of the reference. Consciously, therefore, Binoy Viswam (supra) had not only upheld the validity of Section 139 AA of the Act but also added a note of caution that the consequences spelt out under Section 139AA(2) of the Act would not be presently visited with respect to those assesses who are not Aadhaar Card holders and do not comply with the mandate.
The Five Judges (who were part of the Bench) merely reiterated those observations when the judgment was pronounced by the nine Judges. If the CBDT’s circular dated 27.03.2018 is noticed in the background of these circumstances, there is no room for doubt that the time for linking PAN with Aadhaar has been extended to June 2018 in its expressed term. The Court, therefore, sees no reason to vary its previous order. The returns filed by the petitioner shall be expedited and processed in accordance with law - returns filed by the petitioner shall be expedited and processed in accordance with law subject to the outcome of the decision in [2017 (8) TMI 938 - SUPREME COURT]
-
2018 (5) TMI 1740
Stay of recovery of the balance tax payable - Held that:- On the facts and circumstances, we grant an installment of payment taxes of ₹ 2.50 Crs. per month. The first installment is to be paid on or before 15.06.2018 and the subsequent installments of payment should be made on or before 15th of every subsequent month. When the case is posted for regular hearing, if the assessee is seeking adjournment on any ground, this order shall stand vacated. However, if the Revenue seeks adjournment on any ground, the assessee is entitled to get a blanket stay. Subject to the above conditions, the assessee’s Stay Petition is disposed.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1739
Transfer pricing addition - comparable selection criteria - functional similarity - Held that:-. The assessee is engaged in the distribution of academic books, electronic products and software published by Cengage Group entities and reprint of books and publications through a third party vendor, by obtaining rights from the Associated Enterprises (‘AEs’) and distributing the same in the Indian market. thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list.
The agreement entered into by the assessee with AE clearly provides cope of activities of the assessee which includes reprinting of books received by the assessee from AE in E format. In our considered opinion, reprinting of books needs deployment of assets, employment of employees and risk involved in publishing and selling and therefore, the parameters as required for resale method are not applicable as other value addition and application of technology and assets were made by the assessee for the purpose of reprinting, publishing etc.
As we have allowed and directed to exclude various comparables in the ITS and Marketing segment, we deem it fit to direct the TPO to recomputed the ALP on all three segments after giving due adjustments to the working capital as determined by the ld. CIT(A) with respect to the comparables remaining after excluding comparables indicated hereinabove.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1738
Nature of receipt under the subsidy scheme - whether was not in the nature of a helping hand to the trade but was capital in nature - subsidy scheme of the State Government took the form of an exemption of entertainment duty in Multiplex Theatre Complexes newly set up, for a period of three years, and thereafter payment of entertainment duty @ 25% for the subsequent two years - Held that:- In view of the judgment in Commissioner of Income-Tax I, Kolhapur Vs. M/s. Chaphalkar Brothers Pune (2017 (12) TMI 816 - SUPREME COURT), these appeals also stand dismissed.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1737
Levy of GST on Health care services - diagnosis, pre & post counseling therapy and prevention of diseases by providing sophisticated and relevant tests - N/N. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June, 2017 - Whether the Applicant qualifies as clinical establishment? - Whether the services provided by the applicant qualifies to be health care services?
Clinical Establishment - Held that:- The applicant offers services/facilities requiring diagnosis such as patient counselling, suggesting the relevant test for the patient, collecting samples, obtaining the result of the test, sharing the test results and post counselling. The medical team of the applicant discusses with the oncologist/pathologist, takes samples of required tissues and send it for the tests to US/Germany, with regard to the oncology/auto immune deceases. They play the role of referral/physician and also advice doctors for line of treatment to the establishment. They provide the said services in “Allopathy” system, of medicines, recognised in India. Therefore they qualify to be a clinical establishment.
Health Care Services - Held that:- The Applicant is involved in providing the services of diagnosis, pre & post counseling! therapy and prevention of diseases by providing tests that are sophisticated and relevant. The medical team of the applicant is involved in the complete cycle and hence they facilitate the diagnosis process and therefore the services provided by the applicant qualify to be health care services.
Ruling:- The applicant qualifies to be a clinical establishment and the services offered/provided by the Applicant qualify to be Health Care Services - The intra-state supply of said services attract NIL rate of central tax as per SL.No.74 of the Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June, 2017.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1736
Release of detained goods - inaction on the part of the second respondent in completing the adjudication provided for under Section 129 of Kerala SGST Act in respect of the goods detained - Held that:- It is appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to complete the adjudication in respect of the goods detained in terms of Ext.P5(a) order within two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment - petition disposed off.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1735
Seeking compensation from the Income Tax Department - Loss of interest due to premature withdrawal of the FDRs and retention of money by the respondents - Writ petition u/s 226/227 - seeking directions to release of amount to the petitioner towards loss - Held that:- Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the petition is disposed after directing respondent No.1 to take a decision on the letter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of order.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1734
Condoantion of delay in filing an application for Revision u/s 264 - no explanation of delay for filing such petition - period for filing application for revision - Held that:- As u/s 264(3) there is period of limitation of one year for filing application for revision before the Commissioner - in this case the delay is extremely small and there is a clear provision for condoning the delay - thus the right of revision could be avoided by allowing the petitioner to file additional statement explaining such delay - hence revision Petition is revived and placed back for fresh adjudication.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1733
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Deduction u/s 80IC - Non acceptance of revised return - Held that:- mere making of claim which is found to be not sustainable in law will not amount to furnishing inadequate particulars.
Assessing Officer has rejected the revised return, wherein, part of the claim sought to be laid at the doorstep of Section 80IC was rejected and the order of the Assessing Officer has also become final; but that also may not suffice to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as what the law contemplates is making of a false claim or a claim which is not bonafide. - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1732
Validity of reopening of assessment - whether the investments made by companies in the form of share capital or share premium are genuine? - Held that:- The Inspector made local inquires in the nearby area where the said company is working. He reported that it used to take accommodation entires of the share capital/share premium etc., in various years from the various Kolkata based paper companies to convert its black money into white. Hence, report of Inspector and information received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata were co-related to each other. Consequently, above investment are not genuine. From the above discussion, it is proved that the assessee did not disclose fully and truly material facts to the Department which is necessary assessment. - Decided against assessee.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1731
Penalty u/s 271E and 271D - loans and repayments had not been accounted for in the regular books of accounts - no business exigency or urgency established for accepting and repaying loans only in cash - books of accounts and supporting documents were impounded u/s 133A(3) - Held that:- There is no justifiable reasonable cause for repayment of loans in cash exceeding 20000/- and thus it is a clear violation of law for many years - assessee has not produced books of accounts to vouch for entering such details - hence there was no such reason for regular loan transactions so as to escape penal liability u/s 271E and 271D - ground raised by the Revenue stands allowed - Decided against the assessee.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1730
Exemption u/s 11 - Contravention of Section 13(1)(d) - Dividend income - Tax at margin rate u/s 164 - trust received gift of TISCO Ltd. shares which were subsequently written off. - Whether tax at margin rate u/s 164(2) is to be levied on the income earned from non-exempt asset - whether holding of ineligible assets is sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 13(1)(d)(iii) - Held that:- When the shares are forming part of corpus after 1st June, 1973, question of accretion does not even arise thus the investment in right-issue cannot, by any stretch of imagination, by equated with the phrase accretion by way of bonus shares.
Since dividend income is exempt, no income remains taxable at Maximum Marginal rate - Decision of tribunal [2014 (11) TMI 444 - ITAT JAIPUR] confirmed - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1729
Disallowance u/s 80P - Whether the income from interest earned on Bank FDRs is eligible for deduction u/s 80P - Held that:- The interest income earned by the assessee from its members on account of advance given to them is allowable for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act
Interest income earned by the assessee from the short term deposits made with the State Bank of India is not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) as followed in the case of STATE BANK OF INDIA (SBI) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [2016 (7) TMI 516 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] -
Assessee is entitled to claim the deduction of the expenditure incurred by it in connection with such interest income. Therefore, we direct the AO to take the net interest income for the purpose of disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.
Disallowance of interest on deposits made with other cooperative banks - Held that:- Assessee is eligible for such deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) - Decided in favor of assessee.
Disallowance of income from other sources - Held that:- Assessee is not entitled for deduction in respect of such income in view of Judgment of MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD'S EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER [2014 (2) TMI 516 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] - Decided against the assessee
-
2018 (5) TMI 1728
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice - non specification of charge - Held that:- AO has not explicitly specified in the penalty notice as to whether penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income - therefore, penalty order passed by the AO is liable to be cancelled - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1727
Assessment u/s 153C - addition u/s 68 - proof of documents found during search - Held that:- The documents neither suggest any undisclosed income of the assessee nor any nexus with the share capital declared by the assessee - thus the addition made on account of unexplained share capital stood deleted - relying on the decision of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) -III VERSUS KABUL CHAWLA [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] there is no justification to the addition made against the assessee - Decided in favor of assessee.
............
|
9911796707
