|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 441 to 460 of 1183 Records
-
2021 (6) TMI 743
Sanction of Scheme of Arrangement - Sections 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013 (for short the 'Act') filed by the Petitioner Companies in terms of Rule 15 of Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016 - HELD THAT:- There are no objections to the Scheme and hence there is no impediment in the sanction of the Scheme. Therefore, the Scheme (Annexure P-1) is hereby approved. While approving the Scheme, it is clarified that this order should not be construed as an order in any way granting exemption from payment of any stamp duty, taxes, or any other charges, if any, and payment in accordance with law or granting permission in respect of any compliance with any other requirement which may be specifically required under any law. With the sanction of the Scheme, the Demerged Undertaking (as defined in Clause 1.5 of the Scheme) of the Demerged Company shall be transferred to and vested in the Resulting Company.
Application disposed off.
-
2021 (6) TMI 742
Interest on delayed refunds - jurisdiction of adjudicating authority to review / reopen the adjudication order already passed - HELD THAT:- Both the authorities have failed to appreciate the reasoning given by the Tribunal while allowing the appeals of the appellant for refund of accumulated cenvat credit under Rule 5 with consequential relief - The Tribunal in GENERAL COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [2016 (7) TMI 653 - CESTAT BANGALORE] allowed the appeal of the appellant and the Revenue’s appeal before the High Court was also dismissed; hence the decision of the Tribunal attained finality.
In spite of that, the appellant had to file again the refund application though the original authority vide its order dt. 25.09.2017 sanctioned the refund but did not grant interest in view of the consequential relief given by the Tribunal. Thereafter the appellant filed a separate application under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for claiming the interest for the delay in granting the refund - But the Revenue did not take any action on the application of the appellant and the appellant had to approach the Tribunal for seeking direction to the original authority to dispose of the application and the Tribunal vide its order dt. 23.04.2019 directed the original authority to dispose of the application and thereafter the Revenue again issued a show-cause notice dt. 15.05.2019 to the appellant proposing to reject the demand for interest on the grounds that the original authority does not have the jurisdiction to review or reopen the adjudication order already passed and the appellant had the liberty to file appeal against such adjudication order but he had not filed the same and hence the original authority refused to grant the interest.
The Board vide its circular No.670/61/2002-CX dt. 01.10.2002 has also allowed the payment of interest on delayed refund - Further, the entitlement to claim interest on delayed refund is already settled in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [2011 (10) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT].
The appellants are entitled for interest on delayed payment of refund - matter remanded back to the original authority with the direction to compute the interest in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2021 (6) TMI 741
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- Notice of this petition was issued to the corporate debtor on 31.05.2019 to show cause as to why this petition be not admitted. The Financial Creditor has filed affidavit of service vide Diary No. 5595 dated 15.10.2019 wherein it has been stated that notices were sent vide speed post, Email and by hand to the corporate debtor - The Notice of hearing was also published in two newspapers (English) on 16.10.2019. Newspaper clipping of both newspapers are attached as Annexure-P1 of Diary No. 6986 dated 10.12.2019. Accordingly, several opportunities were afforded to the corporate debtor to file its reply but there has been no representation from the respondent so far.
In the present case, the occurrence of default is evidenced by the details furnished by petitioner including Loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement, no lien letter along with Demand Promissory Note executed between both parties and same are placed at Annexures A-6 & A-7 respectively. Demand Notice dated 06.01.2017 under Section 13(2) of SARFEASI Act (Annexure A-9), possession notice dated 22.03.2017 (Annexure A-10) were issued by financial creditor and copy of order dated 16.02.2019 (Annexure A-11) passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh wherein recovery certificate was issued shows that the corporate debtor had made default in payment of financial debt.
The present petition being complete and having established the default in payment of the Financial Debt for the default amount being above ₹ 1,00,000/-, the petition is admitted in terms of Section 7(5) of the IBC and accordingly, moratorium is declared in terms of Section 14 of the Code - Application allowed.
-
2021 (6) TMI 740
Maintainbaility of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor faield to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors or not - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of the agreements entered into between the petitioner and the respondent, the respondent guaranteed and warranted that it shall utilize the raw material supplied by the petitioner solely and exclusively for the purpose of manufacture of the products for the petitioner and not for any other purpose. Despite the petitioner having provided with the raw material and technical know-how to the respondent and made repeated requests and reminders, the respondent failed and neglected to supply and deliver the products to the creditor. In July 2017, upon physical verification at the premises of the respondent, the petitioner learnt that the raw materials supplied by it are missing from the site and the respondent has wrongly misused and misappropriated the raw material. The respondent by misusing the raw materials which belonged to the petitioner, is in complete breach and violation of the agreement and has deprived the petitioner of its legitimate rights over the stock of raw material. The respondent with such actions have, therefore, committed willful default of the agreement.
The petitioner miserably failed to give a proper calculation/computation of the amount claimed as a debt due from the respondent. The invoices were raised by third party vendors in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has not raised any invoice against the respondent. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the petitioner failed to establish the relationship of an operational creditor and corporate debtor between the petitioner and respondent and also failed to prove any ascertained and established debt either in respect of any services rendered or goods supplied to the respondent or for any breach of trust or terms of agreements. Hence, the issue is answered in the negative.
Petition dismissed.
-
2021 (6) TMI 739
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - dispute of contractual nature or not - arbitration proceedings justified or not - HELD THAT:- In the present matter, it is an admitted fact that at the end of each invoice issued by the Operational Creditor there is an Arbitration Clause. Against these invoices Corporate Debtor had issued debit note. When the debit notes were issued, the corporate Debtor also received emails from Operational Creditor seeking clarification and contesting the issuance of Debit Note, hence, a dispute had come into existence by admitting the fact that valid invoice was existing between the parties. Subsequently, after the exchange of emails the parties have met multiple times to settle the dispute between them with respect to the invoice amount and supply involved. At this stage we are not going into the merits of existence of per-existing dispute as defined in I & B Code, 2016 but to test whether the dispute if any needs to be sent to arbitration as per section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act (as amended).
Since the disputes are purely contractual in nature, the invocation of arbitration is justified. Once the parties are sent to arbitration, nothing survives in the insolvency application as the issues between the parties after arbitration, will decide the rights of the parties. Hence at this stage, the insolvency application in view of the parties being sent to the arbitration, has become infructuous - Application allowed.
-
2021 (6) TMI 738
Liquidation of Corporate Debtor - Section 33 (1) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- This Tribunal is of the view that as per the record and submissions made, we endeavors to obtain resolution of corporate debtor has failed and CoC in its commercial wisdom decided to liquidate the corporate debtor which does not require any interference. In present circumstances the CoC decision is appropriate.
The corporate debtor Ajit Automotive Service Private Limited stands liquidated and the incidence of liquidation to follow, on and from the date of this order in terms of the provisions of IBC, 2016 and more particularly as given in Chapter - III of IBC, 2016 and also in terms of Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2017 - application allowed.
-
2021 (6) TMI 737
Addition on account of income from undisclosed sources on protective basis - assessee submits that the substantive addition was made in the hand of M/s Saheli Developers, wherein the assessee is one of the partner - assessee submits that M/s Saheli Developers accepted the addition and filed application for settlement of dispute on tax with the Department under VSVS Scheme, 2020 and have settled the case and paid due tax - HELD THAT:- As assessee has also filed the copy of the assessment order in case of Saheli Developer having PAN ABLFS 4624 G. further, we find that Saheli Developer filed application under VSV-20 for settlement of dispute of tax and the Designated Authority concern has issued Form-3 vide Acknowledgment No. 110537100060121 dated 06.01.2021, copy of which is also placed on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the substantive addition has been accepted by M/s Saheli Developers and they have paid the due tax by availing the benefit of VSV-20.
Therefore, we direct the AO to verify the fact and delete the protective addition at the hand of the assessee. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2021 (6) TMI 736
Deposit with HDFC Bank Account - HELD THAT:- The Applicant-RP intimated the Respondents in all the three applications regarding the initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor through emails. The Respondents advised not to allow any debit transaction in the account of the Corporate Debtor without prior authorisation of the RP.
Permission to use the amount as available in the current account of the Corporate Debtor with HDFC Bank - seeking removal of lien on the said account for the purpose of allowing the Resolution Professional to use the said amount - HELD THAT:- It is pertinent to observe here that on an earlier occasion, through an application bearing IA No. 1477/KB/2020 in the underlying company petition, the Applicant/RP had prayed for direction on ICICI Bank to release the attachment and defreeze account of the Corporate Debtor bearing No. 635405000368. This Adjudicating Authority had ordered the Respondent therein to defreeze the bank account in respect of which the prayer was made, i.e., 635405000368 along with another account bearing 635405000356 with the same bank - we direct the release or removal of lien or attachment, as the case may be, of all the bank accounts of the Corporate Debtor mentioned supra by all the banks including the Respondents in IA No. 1475/KB/2020 and IA No. 158/KB/2021.
The applicability of the directions contained in this order are extended to all the accounts that may be discovered by the RP in future, in the present company petition, that might have been attached or on which lien might have been created by any of the authorities, to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings. The properties of the corporate debtor, which include the accounts lying at credit in the bank accounts of the corporate debtor, should be available to the resolution professional to keep it as a going concern.
Application disposed off.
-
2021 (6) TMI 735
Liability on legal heir of the dues of deceased - whether for the period October 2009 to February 2014, the successor or the son of Shri Kuldeep Singh is liable to pay dues of services provided by Shri Kuldeep Singh or not? - HELD THAT:- It is very much clear that in case of transfer or otherwise disposal of the business, in such circumstances, only the successor is liable to pay the dues. There is no provision in law till yet in case of death of the proprietor of the firm who will be liable to pay the dues thereof - Reliance placed in the case of SHABINA ABRAHAM AND OTHERS VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS [2015 (7) TMI 1036 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that in case of death of the proprietor of the firm, no liability can be fastened on the legal heir for the period till the lifetime of the proprietor.
No demand of service tax can be fastened on the son of late Shri Kuldeep Singh for the period October 2009 to February 2014 - the impugned order is modified that the revenue shall determine the liability of the appellant firm w.e.f. 01.03.2014 - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2021 (6) TMI 734
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - assessee was one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries by way of share application provided by third party - Assessee argued that addition confirmed on the basis of statement of third person namely Mukesh Chokshi - HELD THAT:- We find that after reopening u/s 147 notice u/s 148 dated 26.03.2014 was duly served upon the assessee on 29.03.2014. In response to notice under section 148, the assessee filed her reply stating therein that return filed originally on 29310.2007 may be treated as return in response to notice under section 148 - The assessee demanded reasons recorded. The reasons recorded were provided to the assessee on 29.05.2014. The assessee raised certain objections on 30.06.2014. The objection of assessee were disposed of in a speaking order on 23.09.2014. All these facts are not disputed by Assessee.
After disposing of objection, AO proceeded to complete the reassessment. AO noted that despite repeated notices, the assessee neither furnished complete details not attended the proceedings before the AO - assessee vehemently argued that the reasons recorded are not valid as there was not sufficient material and specific information against the assessee and strongly relied upon the decision of Tribunal in Pratik Suryakant Shah [2017 (2) TMI 463 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] wherein Tribunal has not given finding on validity of reopening rather the assessee was granted relief on merit, so we will consider the said decision at the time of discussion on merit.
Revenue relied on the decision in Aaspas Multimedia Ltd [2017 (6) TMI 557 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein held that where the reopening (reassessment) was made on the basis of information received from Pr.DIT (Investigation), and that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries by way of share application provided by third party, the reopening was justified.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd., [1997 (12) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] held that at the time of reopening prima facie material on the basis of which Department could reopen the case is sufficient. Further, sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at that stage.
Considering the decision Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and of the Apex Court (supra) we are of the view that the ld.AO was having sufficient prima facie material for reopening, thus, the ground no.1 raised by assessee is dismissed.
Addition u/s 68 - Bogus LTCG - We find that the facts of the case in hand are similar as of facts in Pratik Suryakant Shah [2017 (2) TMI 463 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] - We find that the AO made additions solely on the basis of information received from CCIT (investigation), and even without making any further investigation about the transaction shown by the assessee - in view of the above factual and legal discussions and respectfully following the decisions of coordinate bench of Tribunal as noted above we are of the view that the AO was not justified treating the long term capital gain as bogus solely on the basis of information, when the transaction is supported with sufficient evidence.
The case law relied by revenue in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd.[1954 (10) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] is not helpful to the revenue qua the facts of the present case. In the said the Hon’ble Apex Court held that assessing officer in not fettered by the technical rule of evidence and pleadings and he is not entitled to accept the evidence just like court of law. At the same time the Hon’ble Court held that the AO (ITO) is not entitled to make pure guess and make the assessment without reference to any evidence or any or any material at all and that there must be something more than bare suspicious to support the assessment.
-
2021 (6) TMI 733
Addition of share application and share premium u/s 68 - assessee explained that assessee company submitted complete details of share application money and shares premium received by the assessee company and clearly submitted that assessee company has not received a single penny as a gift from anyone - Commissioner (Appeal) held that the transactions were made through the NRE account and deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- Commissioner (Appeals) independently examined the evidences filed before him and concluded that the assessee proved the identity and status of Girish Bodra being NRI at Dubai who is having income from Director’s remuneration and profit share in Bodra Trading Company LLC and Shyam Trading Co. (LLC). After examining the worth of investor held that the investor has sufficient capacity to invest in the assessee company. The transaction was routed through NRE account. Commissioner (Appeals) also held that the assessee filed details of gift in the name of one director of the company. Further no discrepancy was pointed out by the assessing officer. On the above observation the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) deleted both the additions.
In our view the assessee has fully discharged its onus and proved the transaction of share application and share premium money as genuine. We further concur with the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that there is no discrepancy in the Gift to the director of the assessee company. The donor is the real brother of recipient of the Gift. In our view the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the order after due deliberation on the facts of the case and the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee which we affirm. No contrary fact to take other view is brought over notice. In the result the grounds of appeal raised by revenue are dismissed.
-
2021 (6) TMI 732
Seeking direction to RP to accept the claim filed by the Applicant/Financial Creditor - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, on the application filed by the applicant, the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor was initiated and on perusal of the main application, it is found that while filing the application, the applicant had filed all the documents. As per the averments made in part-IV; column II of the main application, he had enclosed two separate builder-buyer agreements dated 17.04.2013 and 03.10.2013, money receipts, statements issued by the Corporate Debtor admitting the payment made by the financial creditor and bank statement.
It is not the case of the applicant that for the first time, he has raised the claim before the RP after approval of the Resolution Plan by COC. Rather, it is the same applicant, on whose application, the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor was initiated and the RP was appointed - the documents enclosed by the applicant along with the application filed under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016 are the same documents which have also been filed along with the claim form. Therefore, the RP is well aware about the claim of the applicant and that is the reason, the applicant is shown as a creditor in the list of creditors prepared by the RP and which is uploaded on his website too. This fact has also not been denied by the RP during the course of his arguments.
Here, it is not for the first time that the claim came to the knowledge of the RP or Resolution Applicant, rather all the documents as required to prove the claim by the creditor in class under Regulation 8A of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations 2016 were already available with the RP - the RP is directed to consider the claim of the applicant - application disposed off.
-
2021 (6) TMI 731
Seeking grant of stay on AGM to be held - subsequent events of acts of oppression and mismanagement occurred in the Respondent Company while conducting the Annual General Meetings - HELD THAT:- In the present case, while discussing the scope of permitting amendments, this Tribunal examined whether the proposed amendment substantiate, elucidate and expand the pre-existing facts already contained in the original pleadings. In the application, the Applicant alleges the subsequent events of acts of oppression and mismanagement occurred in the Respondent Company while conducting the Annual General Meetings.
It appears from the records that the original Company Petition was filed on 03.07.2019 before the Chennai Bench. The Applicant alleged procedural irregularities occurred while convening the Annual General Meetings to avail the benefit of the "Companies Fresh Start Scheme 2020" for the financial years 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019 according to the Companies Act, 2013. The complaint of the Applicant in the Original Company Petition is that no AGM for the Financial Years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 was conducted.
This Tribunal is of the opinion that only based on the conclusion that whether the petition is maintainable or not, then only subsequent events can be considered to do complete justice between the parties and to make appropriate orders for removing the oppression and mismanagement in the Respondent Company - Application dismissed.
-
2021 (6) TMI 730
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - addition towards payments made to the sub-contractors on the ground that the assessee could not produce any information nor could produce any sub-contractor - HELD THAT:- It is a settled position of law that the assessment can be reopened under section 147/148 on the basis of ‘reason to believe’ and not ‘reason to suspect’. Unless the reasons to believe about the escapement of income exist, no recourse can be taken to the provisions of section 147.
It is well settled by a number of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the twin conditions which are required to be fulfilled before an Assessing Officer can exercise his jurisdiction under clause (a) of section 147 of the Act are (a) that the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income, profits or gains chargeable to tax had either been underassessed or had escaped assessment and (b) that the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that such escapement or underassessment was caused by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year. In the impugned case, the Assessing Officer has not satisfied with the second limb of section 147.
The reopening of assessment can be quashed on two counts, i) no new material was brought on record by the AO in the reopening of assessment to establish that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment as the assessee has already disclosed all the information necessary for completion of original assessment and ii) the reopening of assessment made beyond four years from the AY under consideration. AO reopened the assessment based on change of opinion, which is not acceptable as per the decisions quoted supra. Therefore, we quash the reopening of assessment made by the AO and the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue are allowed.
-
2021 (6) TMI 729
Seeking release of attached Bank Accounts - moratorium was already imposed - seeking restraint from transferring or making payments from the bank account of the Corporate Debtor maintained with it to any third party - HELD THAT:- This Bench is of the considered view that in view of the admission of CIRP on 25.09.2019, moratorium is imposed instantaneously, the order of Respondent No. 2 directing Respondent No. 1 to freeze the account of the Corporate Debtor vide an order of attachment dated 21.11.2020 is in contravention of the moratorium imposed under section 14 of the Code, and interferes with the role of the RP in managing the affairs/business and management of the Corporate Debtor under section 17, 18, 20 and 23 of the Code. In view of section 25 the RP is duty bound to take immediate control of all the assets of the Corporate Debtor and hence has rightly sought for the defreezing action from the Respondent No. 1 - The Respondent No. 1 further has appeared in the Court and indicated that they have no objection for defreezing the bank account.
The order of attachment passed by the Respondent No. 2, i.e. The Assistant Collector, Division-19, Commercial Tax, Lucknow dated 21.11.2020 is hereby set aside - application allowed.
-
2021 (6) TMI 728
Approval of Composite Scheme of Arrangement - Section 230 to 232 read with Section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013 r/w the Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016 - HELD THAT:- Various directions regarding holding and convening of meetings issued - various directions regarding issuance of SCN also issued.
The scheme is approved - Application allowed.
-
2021 (6) TMI 727
Addition on account of alleged on-money cash receipt - HELD THAT:- From the above details of stamp duty value and actual sale amount, it is evident that no flat has been sold by the assessee on less than the stamp duty value so as to raise any suspicion about receipt of on-money of sale of flats. All the flats are sold at above stamp duty/market value which itself shows that is it not conclusively proved that the assessee has received any on-money.
In view of the fact that original statement of director on the basis of which the AO made addition has been retracted and original statement does not hold good and in view of the fact that flats have been sold at the price much above stamp duty value, we hold that the seized material and the statement of Shri Pradeep Gupta do not conclusively prove that on-money has been received by the assessee on sale of flats. In the circumstances, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations and the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition made on account of alleged on-money cash receipt.
Unaccounted income received from sale of flats over and above registered value - HELD THAT:- As observed that the flats have been sold by the assessee at a price much higher than the stamp duty value and thus, the order passed by us while disposing off the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2013-14 shall apply mutatis mutandis for disposing the present appeal for A.Y. 2014-15. Accordingly, the addition made in the present appeal is also deleted. Ground No. 3 is allowed.
Unexplained portion of cash investment in immovable property u/s. 69B - HELD THAT:- Addition was also made on the basis of original statement of director of company Shri Pradeep Gupta, which does not hold good after the same has been retracted by the director for the reasons given by us in our earlier paragraphs while disposing off the appeal for A.Y. 2013-14. Hence, the addition is deleted. Ground No. 4 is allowed.
-
2021 (6) TMI 726
Maintainability of appeal - Monetary limit for filing of appeal by revenue in case of penalty - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- Quantum proceedings and penalty proceedings are independent and distinct proceedings and confirmation of an addition cannot on a standalone basis justify imposition/upholding of a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Adopting the same logic, we are of the considered view that unless a specific exception is provided in the Circular w.r.t penalty also, it could by no means be construed that penalty was to be treated at par with the quantum additions.
Quantum proceedings and penalty proceedings are independent and distinct proceedings and confirmation of an addition cannot on a standalone basis justify imposition/upholding of a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Adopting the same logic, we are of the considered view that unless a specific exception is provided in the Circular w.r.t penalty also, it could by no means be construed that penalty was to be treated at par with the quantum additions.
Since the levy of penalty by no means could be construed as an addition within the meaning of Clause 10(e) of the aforesaid circular therefore, we do not find any merit in the contentions advanced by the ld. D.R that the aforesaid exception carved out in the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 (supra) would also take within its realm a penalty imposed under Sec. 271(1)(c) w.r.t the additions made by the A.O towards bogus purchases on the basis of information received from Sales Tax Department, i.e an external agency. Accordingly, finding favour with the claim of the ld. A.R that the appeal of the revenue is covered by the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dated 08.08.2019, the same, thus, in our considered view is not maintainable. Accordingly, we herein dismiss the appeal of the revenue, for the reason, that the tax effect therein involved is lower than that contemplated in the aforesaid CBDT Circular fixing the monetary limit of filing of appeals by the revenue before the Tribunal. Appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2021 (6) TMI 725
Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credit - HELD THAT:- As assessee has filed all the details required from these loan creditors for proving the identity and creditworthiness of each of the loan creditors and the genuineness of the transactions. The documents filed are copy of loan confirmation letters, copy of the bank pass books evidencing the fact that the transactions are taken place through banking channels, copy of the income tax returns filed by each of the loan creditors which proves that they are all income tax assessee’s, annual accounts including balance sheet of each of the loan creditors.
CIT(A) has discussed each of the documents filed by these loan creditors - He has given factual findings on each of these cash credits. The ld. D/R could not controvert any of these factual findings. AO has issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to each of the loan creditors and all these notices were complied with. We uphold the factual findings of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of the Revenue.
Addition made u/s 2(22)(e) - HELD THAT:- The loan/advance carried an interest of 12% per annum. On these facts, the ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of Pradip Kr. Malhotra [2011 (8) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] as well as CIT vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing (P.) Ltd. [2009 (9) TMI 43 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and deleted the addition. We find no infirmity in the same.
-
2021 (6) TMI 724
Unaccounted income from unaccounted production - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) had deleted the addition noting the report of the Committee specially formed for studying average variation in electricity consumption in similar mills accepting 15 % as acceptable variation. That the Ld. CIT(A) had noted from the facts of the said case that the variation fell within the range so prescribed by the Committee and accordingly deleted the addition made by the AO.
In the present appeal also, we have noted that the Ld.CIT(A) , after noting the fact that the data submitted by the assessee regarding consumption of electricity and PMT production of finished goods therefrom was more reliable as opposed to that of the AO, went on to find therefrom that the variation in electricity consumption PMT of goods produced by the assessee fell within the acceptable 15 % range. DR has not controverted the aforestated findings of fact recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). The issue stands squarely covered therefore in favour of the assessee.
............
|
9911796707
