|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 461 to 480 of 1664 Records
-
2022 (9) TMI 1205
Seizure of goods alongwith the vehicle - goods seized on the ground that they were not accompanied with the E-way bill - HELD THAT:- The issue has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in M/S GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD., L.G. ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED, M/S GUALA CLOSURES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., M/S. RAS POLYTEX PVT. LIMITED, RIMJHIM ISPAT LIMITED, RIMJHIM ISPAT LIMITED, M/S. GAURANG PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., M/S. ADITYA BIRLA FASHION AND RETAIL LTD., M/S. NAVYUG AIRCONDITIONING AND M/S. PROACTIVE PLAST PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND 02 OTHERS AND STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS [2018 (9) TMI 1261 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] where it has been held that the goods were not covered with the requirement of E-way bill during 1.2.2018 to 31.3.2018.
The goods in the present case were seized on 11.02.2018 that is only for the reason they were not accompanied with the E-way bill. Since the requirement of the E-way bill was not applicable for the petitioner during the above period, the seizure itself is bad in law. Accordingly, the impugned seizure order dated 11.02.2018 passed under Section 129(1) of U.P. GST (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed and all consequential proceedings stands dropped.
The writ petition is allowed.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1204
Rejection of the revocation application - Non-speaking order - earlier proceedings were dismissed on the ground that an appellate remedy is available under the Act - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The order passed by the authority cancelling the application for revocation is devoid of reasons. None of the grounds raised by the appellant has been dealt with. It is not clear as to why the department has been dragging the appellant for such a long period, i.e. from August, 2021. If, according to the respondent, there is any adverse material, then a proper show cause notice should have been given to the appellant and her objection should have been invited and further affording an opportunity of personal hearing, a speaking order should have been passed.
It is high time that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes takes note of the manner in which the subordinate officers have been dealing with cases, more particularly matters concerning cancellation of registration and it would augur well to conduct an orientation programme to enable to the officers to be sensitized as to how and on what manner the proceedings should be initiated and how it should be dealt with and how speaking order should be passed.
In the instant case there has been total violation of principles of natural justice, the order of rejection of the revocation application is a non-speaking order without considering the vital facts, the Court is inclined to set aside such an order.
The order passed in the writ petition is set aside and the writ petition is allowed and the order of rejection of the application for revocation dated 21st March, 2021 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority - Appeal allowed.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1203
Seeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) based on forged and fake invoices - applicant summoned under Section 70 of the Act - HELD THAT:- The allegations are much grave. It is the case of generating fake and forged invoices so as to claim ITC. In their objections, the respondent no.2 has given categorical details of such dubious transactions and has also submitted as to how in one day, the money has routed in different accounts. The applicant transferred the money in his wife’s account and, subsequently, from her account, it comes to the applicant’s account. It is a kind of act, which effects the economy of the country. Added to it is the non-cooperative attitude of the applicant during enquiry.
Having considered the gravity of offence and its implications, this Court is of the view that the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail - the instant anticipatory bail application deserves to be dismissed.
The anticipatory bail application is dismissed.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1202
Detention of goods alongwith the vehicle - E-way bill was valid up to 22nd January, 2021 and the vehicle, which was transporting the goods was intercepted on 25th January, 2021 and by then, the e-way bill had expired - mala fide intention on the part of the appellants in not extending the e-way bill and transporting the goods after the expiry of the e-way bill, or not - HELD THAT:- The learned appellate authority should consider the question as to whether there was any intentional attempt made by the appellants to evade payment of tax. Since this aspect has not been considered by the learned appellate authority, we are constrained to remand the matter to the appellate authority for fresh consideration.
The appeal as well as the writ petition are disposed of and consequently, the order passed by the learned appellate authority dated 30th November, 2021 is set aside and the appeal stands restored to the file of the appellate authority to be decided on merits and in accordance with law.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1201
Detention of goods alongwith the vehicle - goods were not accompanied by the valid e-way bill - transaction being an export transaction - wilful intention on the part of the appellants not to generate any e-way bill, or not - Section 129 of GST Act - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the order passed by the first appellate authority, it is found that such exercise has not been done. Therefore, one more opportunity can be granted to the appellants to show their bona fides.
This appeal as well as the writ petition are disposed of and the order passed by the appellate authority dated 30th November, 2021 is set aside and the matter stands remanded to the appellate authority. The appeal shall stand restored in the file of the appellate authority and the appellants shall appear before the appellate authority and produce all documents to establish their case that no tax is leviable and there was no willful intention on their part to evade payment of tax so as to attract penalty, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1200
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy or not - Section 107(1) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- No useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and the suggested direction would not only take care the interest of the appellants but also would safeguard the interest of revenue. Accordingly, the appeal and the writ petition are disposed of with the directions imposed.
The appellants are directed to file a statutory appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the server copy of this judgment and order and remit 10% of the disputed tax along with the appeal memorandum. Upon such payment of the 10% of the disputed tax and filing the appeal, the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue shall address the appellants’ bankers and keep in abeyance the garnishee notice so as to enable the appellants to operate their bank account.
Application disposed off.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1199
Maintainability of petition - appealable order or not - opportunity of hearing provided or not - Section 74(9) of the WBGST Act, 2017/ CGST Act 2017 - HELD THAT:- It is found that the authority has recorded that the Registered Tax Prayer (RTP), namely, the appellant has neither appeared nor filed any reply to the intimation given to the appellant.
There are no need to go into the controversy as to whether the documents were submitted and as to whether the authority concerned, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax had received those documents as this Court is of the view that one more opportunity can be granted to the appellant to submit all the documents and the cancellation of registration was not justified. If these have been adopted, it will not only safeguard the interests of the appellant but also aid the revenue who were interested in recovery of appropriate taxes.
The appeal stands allowed in part and the appeal alongwith the writ petition stands disposed of by directing the appellant to treat the order passed under Section 74(9) of the WBGST Act, 2017 read with CGST Act, 2017 dated 23.03.2022 as an additional show cause notice and the appellant is directed to submit reply alongwith all relevant documents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the server copy of this order.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1198
Detention of goods alongwith the vehicle - goods are tax free animal feed supplement with HSN 2309 or not - residue/waste of distillery covered under HSN 2303 or not - HELD THAT:- The legality of the order dated 11.01.2021 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Bathinda raising demand of tax/penalty need not be gone into at this stage. Such view is being taken for the reason that the facts of the case make out a case for remand to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration.
Perusal of the impugned order dated 29.06.2022 at Annexure P-7 passed by the Appellate Authority would clearly show that the submissions/grounds raised by the petitioner in the statutory appeal have not even been adverted to, much less dealt with. The impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, as such, cannot sustain.
The present writ petition is partly allowed and the order dated 29.06.2022 at Annexure P-7 is set aside - The matter is remanded back for consideration afresh at the hands of the Appellate Authority and after taking into account all the submissions and contentions raised by the petitioner in the appeal at Annexure P-6.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1197
Proper officer - Validity of issue of Authorization for access to Business premises issued under Section 71(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - contrary to Sub-Section 91 of Section 2 read with Section 5(1) and 5(3) of the APGST Act or not - whether the authorization given to the second respondent herein by the Joint Commissioner is valid in law? - HELD THAT:- A reading of Section 71(1) of the APGST Act, clearly demonstrate that any Officer under this Act, authorized by a Proper Officer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner shall have access to place of any business of registered person to inspect the books of accounts, documents - The Proper Officer referred to in Section 71(1) of the Act would mean the Chief Commissioner or the Officer of the State who is assigned that function by the Chief Commissioner as defined in Section 2(91) of APGST Act.
It is very much evident that the Proper Officer for the functions referred to Section 71(1) of the Act, would be the three officers referred to in the column designation of officer authorized and one such Officer being Joint Commissioner (ST) working in the Division - In the instant case, as seen from the impugned proceedings, the authorization for access to business purpose under Section 71(1) of APGST Act was issued by Joint Commissioner (ST). Hence, the argument though appeared to be impressive at the first stage, but on a close perusal of the Notification issued, proved to be incorrect.
Therefore, the authorization given by the Joint Commissioner pursuant to the Gazette Notification issued by the Chief Commissioner authorizing certain categories of persons cannot be found fault with. It is also to be noted here that the authorization by the Chief Commissioner came to be issued in terms of Section 2(91) of the Act which categorically states that the “Proper Officer” would mean not only the Chief Commissioner but also Officer of the State Tax, who is assigned that function by the Chief Commissioner - there are no grounds to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner, namely, to quash the proceeding issued by Joint Commissioner authorizing the Assistant Commissioner (ST) to conduct inspection/search etc. of the premises of the petitioner.
The writ petition is dismissed.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1196
Seeking grant of Regular Bail (second bail application) - availment of inadmissible input tax credit - Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 132 of Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 132 of State(s) Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 20 of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner earlier also filed bail petition before this Court vide CRM-M-1315-2022 which was dismissed by way of passing a detailed order vide Annexure P-4 on the ground that material witnesses are yet to be examined and also considering the apprehension expressed by the the learned counsel for the respondent that in case the petitioner is released on bail then he may influence witnesses or may tamper with evidence or may flee from justice. There is no change of circumstance during the interregnum period after the dismissal of the earlier bail petition till the filing of the present petition. As per the learned counsel for the respondent, the material witnesses are yet to be examined.
Petition dismissed.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1195
Seeking grant of Regular Bail - evasion of GST - kachcha entry (unaccounted transaction) - offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(a) and 132(1)(i) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act) and Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- In the facts of the present case, based on the unaccounted transactions, the evasion of tax has been unearthed by the department. The department has already filed the complaint before the Court concerned. The department objected the bail application mainly on the ground that investigation is still under way. This Court is of considered view that, merely raising the contention that investigation is still going on is not enough, but, department should have point out that the further custody of the applicant is necessary. It is on record that, no liability is fixed or determined as per the statutory provisions of the Act. It is the right of the assessee to file an appeal against the assessment subject to deposit of the 10% disputed liability which may not exceed Rs.2 crore. In the facts of the present case Rs.39,88,318/-, has been recovered during the course of investigation from the applicant.
In such circumstances, when trial of the case would not likely to conclude in a reasonable time and the applicant is in custody since 24.03.2022 and considering the bonafide shown by the applicant to deposit the amount, the applicant is to be released on bail subject to deposit of Rs.60 lakhs, before the Office of Chief Commissioner of State Tax, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad within a period of six months in six equal installments from the date of his release - the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail - application allowed.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1194
Maintainability of appeal - fair and sufficient opportunity of hearing provided to the Petitioner or not - non-application of mind - principles of natural justice - Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Under identical circumstances, this Court in the case of M/S. SHRI MAHILA GRIHA UDYOG LIJJAT PAPAD VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS) -2, BENGALURU; THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, AUDIT-2. 1, BENGALURU [2022 (9) TMI 1050 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], has set aside the impugned endorsement and remitted back the matter to respondent No.1 – Appellate Authority for re-consideration in accordance with law.
In the said order, this Court set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority and remitted the matter back for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law and since the issue in controversy involved in both the petitions are identical, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order at Annexure-D dated 14.07.2022 passed by the respondent No.3 – Appellate Authority and remit the matter back to the respondent No.3 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
Petition allowed.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1193
Seeking grant of further time to the petitioners to file revised Form GST TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 or to file fresh Form GST TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 - transitional credit - HELD THAT:- The issue decided in the case of UNION OF INDIA & ANR. VERSUS FILCO TRADE CENTRE PVT. LTD. & ANR. [2022 (7) TMI 1232 - SC ORDER] where it was held that Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTN) is directed to open common portal for filing concerned forms for availing Transitional Credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 for two months i.e. w.e.f. 01.09.2022 to 31.10.2022.
Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the above direction of the Supreme Court sufficiently covers the interest of the petitioners. No grievance of the petitioners subsist thereafter.
The Writ Petitions are disposed of.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1192
TP Adjustment - Comparable selection - Whether ITAT fell in error in holding that the Assessee is not a Knowledge Processing Outsourcing Unit (‘KPO’) whereas the Assessee itself in the transfer pricing study report had declared that it is engaged in KPO activities? - HELD THAT:- ITAT has recorded that admittedly, there has been no change in the functions performed by the Assessee for the earlier years and in AY 2009-10 when the said comparables were excluded in the case of the Assessee after analyzing its functional profile.
ITAT and the DRP have thus, returned concurrent finding of facts with respect to the functional dissimilarities of the said four comparables with the Assessee. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the said finding of facts and there is no perversity in the said findings. Revenue has not been able to demonstrate that the analysis done by ITAT and DRP while excluding the companies suggested by Revenue from the list of comparables, was in any manner contrary to the settled position in law.
This Court in WSP Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (11) TMI 464 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that inclusion or exclusion of comparables per se cannot be treated as a question of law unless it is demonstrated to the Court that the Tribunal took into account irrelevant consideration or excluded irrelevant factors in the ALP that impact significantly. ITAT has not committed any perversity or applied incorrect principle to the given facts and therefore, we do not find that any substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1191
Exchange in old currency notes seized by the Police Authorities under an order of seizure - HELD THAT:- The present writ petition is disposed of. Petitioner shall approach the respondents within a period of 04 weeks of receipt of a certified copy of this order whereupon the respondents shall exchange the old demonetized currency notes with new currency notes subject to the petitioner fulfilling the terms and conditions mentioned above, within a period of 04 weeks of the petitioner approaching the respondents.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1190
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Validity of order passed u/s 148A(d) - penny stock purchases - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that in the impugned order passed u/s 148A(d) it is stated that the petitioner had sold penny stock i.e. M/s Solis Marketing Ltd. for a consideration - The impugned order further states that the petitioner did not furnish the Demat Account Statements or respond to the case on merits of case in his reply to the show cause notice.
This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that in the case of another assessee who had similarly purchased the stock of M/s. Solis Marketing Ltd., the revenue department has alleged that the assessee therein had earned long term capital gain which was almost forty-five times the investment within a short span of time. In this case as well, a perusal of the petitioner’s reply dated 29th May, 2022 evidences that the shares purchased at face value of Rs.1 were sold at approx. Rs.50 per share earning the petitioner the LTCG which were admittedly claimed as exempt income.
AO in the impugned order has also held that ‘the assessee is one of the beneficiary of generating bogus LTCG & STCG through M/s Solis Marketing Ltd. in planned manner and has routed her unaccounted income. The total consideration has escaped assessment’. In fact, in the impugned order, it has been repeatedly emphasised by the AO that the entire consideration received by the petitioner is income that has escaped assessment.
Neither the bifurcation between the STCG and LTCG nor the calculation of income furnished by the petitioner can be accepted at this stage in writ proceedings. The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Abdul Majeed [2022 (7) TMI 865 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] has no application to the facts of the present case as in the said case ‘only cash deposit chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, without anything more’
This Court is of the view that the impugned order calls for no interference at this stage. However, the petitioner is given liberty to raise all contentions and submissions before the AO.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1189
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - valid assumption of jurisdiction - revision being invalid as the notice u/s. 263 was issued in the name of a deceased person - HELD THAT:- Section 159, it explains, does not bear upon the jurisdiction of the taxing authority, but deals with matters incidental to it. The decision in Sumantbhai C. Munshaw (Decd.), [1980 (7) TMI 68 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]a treatise on the subject, is, thus, consistent with the binding decisions in Kaushalyabai (1997 (3) TMI 20 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] and Premium Capital Markets & Investment Ltd. (2005 (1) TMI 54 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT) i.e., in principle. In Swaran Kanta v. CIT [1988 (11) TMI 91 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] the mention of the name of the deceased in the heading of the order, in proceedings, validly initiated, and concluded on the LR, whose is deemed by law (s.159) to be an assessee, was held as valid notwithstanding that the title of the order was not happily worded, which though would not make it invalid for that reason and, besides, is saved by s. 292B.
The foregoing explains our decision in non-acceptance of the assessee’s case. We may, before parting, also advert to the decision in Guduthur Brothers v. ITO [1960 (7) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT]wherein the Apex Court per it’s larger Bench decision explained that where a notice remained undisposed, it did not cease to be operative, and the AO had the jurisdiction to continue the proceedings from the stage where the illegality had occurred.
Notice u/s. 143(2) was for limited scrutiny, i.e., qua cash deposited during demonetisation period it was not proper on the part of the revisionary authority to, in exercise of the revisionary power, question the absence of verification in assessment qua agricultural income, disclosed by the assessee - The objection is, to our mind, not maintainable, both on facts and in law. This is as agricultural income is surely one of the sources of cash deposited by the assessee, to verify which the return was selected for scrutiny. Two, that the assessee does not own any agricultural land is an admitted fact. It is only where the land is either owned or taken on rent (as per revenue record), that the income from agricultural activity could be said to be agricultural. The AO ought to have, therefore, exceeded his ambit to verify the veracity of the claims as to agricultural income, exempt u/s. 10, i.e., besides being in explanation of the source of the cash deposit. He having not done so, by seeking the approval of his range head, as enjoined upon him by the Board Circular, binding on him, the said authority was competent to, in exercise of his revisionary jurisdiction, require the AO to examine the same, setting aside the assessment for the purpose.
On facts, we approve of the observations by the Pr. CIT being in respect of the infirmities observed by him qua the assessee’s explanation in respect of her claim for agricultural income of Rs. 7.01 lacs. The AO, who abysmally failed to do so in the original proceedings, shall question the assessee in the matter keeping the same in mind, though not limited thereto, and neither being bound thereby, inasmuch as it is an open set aside - That is, he shall decide per a speaking order, issuing definite findings of fact upon due enquiry/verification, observing the principles of natural justice.
Revision in the instance case is, in our view, attracted under clauses (a), (b) & (c) of Explanation 2 to s. 263(1). We decide accordingly, declining interference. - Decided against assessee.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1188
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - Scope of the instructions issued by the CBDT - Exercise of power us/ 119 - additions had been made under the head “undisclosed investment in silver stock”, “undisclosed investment in stock”, “undisclosed sale” and “disallowance u/s.69A” - As submitted AO has followed the appraisal report issued by the Investigation Wing - HELD THAT:- Revenue has not been able to show as to which portion of the appraisal report, the Assessing officer has not complied with. Mere allegation that the AO has not followed the appraisal report would not hold water.
Coming to the clause (c) of the Explanation 2 to Section 263, the order or direction or instruction, which is referred therein, are those issued by the CBDT u/s.119. A perusal of the said instruction shows that this is practically a search and seizure manual notification. It is an internal communication being guidelines for the notice of the Commissioner of Income tax, Range Head and the AO handling the assessment of search and seizure cases. This notification is not one which has been issued u/s.119 of the Income tax Act, 1961
Normally, when the Board issues any specific direction u/s.119, it is mentioned that such a direction of circular/order or notification is issued u/s.119. Thus, on this ground itself, the order passed u/s.263 is liable to annulled and we do so.
Assessment order passed u/s.143(3) for the impugned assessment year has been subject matter of appeal before the ld CIT(A - In the order of the ld CIT(A), the issue of the stock valuation has already been considered. The ld CIT(A) has also taken cognizance of the fact that pages 2 to 37 of the assessment order is nothing but extract of the appraisal report. This being so, in view of the provisions of Explanation -1 (c) of Section 263 (1), as the order passed by the AO had been the subject matter of appeal filed after the 1st day of June, 1988, the powers of the Pr. CIT u/s.263(1) could extend only to such matters as had not been considered and decided in the appellate order. Both the issues proposed by the pr. CIT was subject matter and has been under the consideration of the ld CIT(A) and the Pr. CIT has also recognized that the ld CIT(A) has adjudicated the appeal and he has also passed his order on 14.10.2019 much before the show cause notice has been issued by the Pr. CIT. Thus, on this ground also, the order passed u/s.263 is unsustainable and same stands quashed. Appeal of assessee allowed.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1187
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - application under Vivad Se Vishwas 2020 made - addition in respect of deemed rent U/s 22 r.w.s. 23 of the Act has filed an appeal with the CIT(A) and during pendency of the appeal - HELD THAT:- We find the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 24.11.2019. On appeal, the CIT(A) considering the facts of VSVS 2020 by the assessee has passed the order U/sec 250 of the Act on 26-05-2021. Whereas, the Pr.CIT on the same facts, were the A.O. has applied the mind and made an addition and passed order, now the Pr.CIT has issued notice u/sec 263 of the Act on 03-03-2022 and passed revision order on 15-03-2022. We are of the opinion that the Pr.CIT has invoked provisions of section 263 of the Act after conclusion of proceedings were the assessee has opted VSVS 2020 and received Form.no.5 after payment of full/final disputed taxes on 1.05.2021. Hence the revision order passed U/sec 263 of the Act is abated. See GOPALAKRISHNAN RAJKUMAR, GOPALAKRISHNAN RAVIM [2022 (5) TMI 1388 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - Appeal of assessee allowed.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1186
Exemption u/s 11 - assessee has incurred expenses in foreign currency outside India under the head “Expenses on Specialized fairs and Buyers Seller Meet Abroad” - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the grants are given specifically for participation in a particular events held in abroad, the grant approval includes a condition that a separate account for the projects have to be maintained. The assessee has utilize the funds as per the terms and conditions of the grant and the grants are not to be utilized in any other purpose than for which it is issued and also that the execution of the project is not be entrusted to any other organization. The up spent grant along with interest @10% from the date of release of the fund has to be reimbursed by the Government. Therefore it is evident that the assessee is not free to use the funds voluntarily as per its own whims and fancies and the same has to be spent as per the terms and conditions of the grant.
As in the case of Society for integrated Development in urban and rural areas (SIDUR) [2002 (12) TMI 205 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B] the issue regarding treatment of tide up grants was considered by the Tribunal wherein it was held that voluntarily contributions covered by Section 12 are those contributions freely available to the assessee without any stipulation, which the assessee can utilize towards his objectives according to its own discretion and judgment. The tide up grants for a specific purpose would only mean that the assessee which was voluntarily organization, had agree to act as a trustee of a special fund granted by the donor with the result that it need not be pooled or integrated with the assessee is normal income or corpus.
We do not find any legal infirmity or error in the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the A.O and we find no merits in the grounds of Appeal of the Revenue.
............
|
9911796707
