|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 501 to 520 of 1733 Records
-
2019 (6) TMI 1235
Refund of penalty - movement of the goods from Bengaluru to Mysore was without E-way bill - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the petitioner has paid the penalty determined by the respondents and the goods were released to the petitioner. If that being the position, there is no inhibition for the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of statutory appeal provided under the Act for redressal of his grievance as the contentions raised by the petitioner revolves around the factual aspects of the case.
There is no other option for this Court except to relegate the petitioner to the Appellate Authority to avail the alternative remedy of appeal available under the Act - petition disposed off.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1234
Expiry of notification extending ADD - the matter was to put up on 21st June 2019 - Today, there is a joint request by counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent for granting them time to place on record the gist of written submissions by Monday i.e. 24.6.2019 - HELD THAT:- At their request, matter is kept on 24.6.2019.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1233
Advance License Scheme - import of copper concentrate - violation of conditions of the advance licenses - the Central Excise authorities were still of the view that a show-cause notice was required to be issued to the Company - HELD THAT:- It is seen that the appellants are issued with the show cause notice by the first respondent. Their challenge against the said show cause notice was not successful before this Court. However, they approached the Apex Court and filed Special Leave Petition challenging the order passed by this Court in refusing to interfere with the show cause notice. Though the appellants, by way of an interim relief before the Apex Court, sought for stay of further proceedings, it is seen that the Apex Court, by order dated 21.04.2017, permitted the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, namely, the first respondent herein, to pass final order and keep it in a sealed cover - Thus, from the perusal of the said interim order of the Apex Court, it is evident that the first respondent can go ahead with the adjudication process and also pass the final orders and however, he has to keep such order in a sealed cover.
Whether the rejection of the request made by the appellants for furnishing certain documents needs to be interfered with in these appeals? - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the appellants already filed an RTI application and obtained copies of the letters, dated 13.09.2014 and 09.01.2015 sent by the Customs Department to the Central Exercise Department. They want reply filed by the Central Excise Department in response those two letters and also another letter, dated 29.04.2011 issued by the Customs Department. When it is the specific case of the first respondent that those documents sought by the appellants are not relied upon documents in the show cause notice, we failed to understand as to how the appellants are justified in making the demand in the enquiry to furnish such of those documents which are not relied upon documents by the revenue.
The department cannot rely upon certain documents to proceed against the other person without furnishing copies of such documents to him, so as to enable such person to defend the enquiry effectively. At the same time, if the department has not relied on certain documents, which are sought to be furnished by the other side, certainly, there is no vested right on the person to seek such documents in the domestic enquiry/adjudicatory proceedings - The right to seek a document under the Right to Information Act cannot be equated with a right to seek a document in the domestic enquiry/adjudicatory proceedings, since both the rights are not on the same footing and on the other hand, they are on different context. Under the Right to Information Act, a person seeking certain documents need not give any reason for his requirement. However, if the documents sought under RTI application is either prohibited or exempted document as contemplated under Section 8 of the said Act, the same need not be furnished.
It is stated that the appellants submitted that an RTI application for furnishing documents and that the same is pending. If that be the case, it is for the appellants to work out their remedy under the said application in a manner known to law, as this Court at this stage, is not expressing any view on that application, at it would go beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the present appeals.
There is no question of law much less substantial one as raised in these appeals arises for consideration to entertain these appeals - appeal dismissed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1232
Expiry of Notification extending Anti-dumping Duty - HELD THAT:- We find substance in this matter as the arguments have been continuously going on and concluded only today. Besides, there is a request from respondent side to permit respondent no.1 to place on record the written submission. We have granted permission to respondent no.2 also to place written submission on record by 21st June 2019. In that view of the matter, casting an order and judgment may take some time therefore, it is observed that the respondent nos.1, 3 & 4 shall extend the anti dumping duty notification in respect of product in question at least till 9th July 2019 before the existing notification comes to an end.
Put up on 21st June 2019.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1231
Imposition of penalty u/s 114 AA of Customs Act - Seizure of contraband item - HELD THAT:- As far as Revenue implication is concerned, if the penalty imposed under Section 114 AA of said Act is paid within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, there will be no impediment in the order of the Appellate Authority being given effect to. In other words, there will be no impediment in redemption i.e., implementation of the order made by the third respondent viz., Appellate Authority.
Penalty imposed by the Original Authority under Section 114 AA and deleted by the Appellate Authority (third respondent) which is the sole issue in the revisions shall be paid by the writ petitioner to the Customs Department within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Thereafter, i.e., on payment of penalty imposed by Original Authority under Section 114 AA of said Act, respondents 1 and 2, more particularly, respondent No.2 shall implement (notwithstanding pendency of Revision) the order of the third respondent made in appeals i.e., by permitting redemption on payment of redemption fine as reduced by the Appellate Authority within a fortnight there from.
Petition disposed off.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1230
Imposition of penalties on CHA under the provisions of Regulations 22 of CBLR, 2013 - misdeclaration, misclassification and under valuation of imported goods - wireless Point of Sale Devices (POS) - Mobile Point of Sale Device (MPOS) - Department is of the opinion that the product (MPOS) has been imported by M/s.Pax Technology India Pvt. Ltd. and cleared through the Customs broker, M/s. Rubal Logistics Pvt. Ltd. - HELD THAT:- From the Order-in-Original, it is observed that the adjudicating authority has gone into the details of the statements of all concerned recorded at the stage of investigation. Not only this, the authority has perused the Master Distribution Agreement of M/s. Pax Technology India Pvt. Ltd. and has observed that the soft-ware license was an integral part of the devices without which the impugned devices could not be operated and that the value of soft ware license fee has to be included in the total value of the devices. Based on these observations that the impugned goods were held to be misclassified and misvalued/ misdeclared. However, as far as the role of the appellant is concerned, it is observed by the adjudicating authority that he bonafidely believed about the changed invoice to be the correct one. The CHA is rather observed to have complied with the formalities as that of KYC documentation. It is in view whereof that his license has not been revoked. However, the penalty has been imposed under 11 (d), (e) & (m) of CBLR, 2013.
The provisions under 11 (d), (e) & (m) of CBLR, 2013 require the Customs Broker to exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information and to advice the client accordingly. Though the CHA was accepted as having no mensrea of the noticed mis-declaration /under- valuation or mis-quantification but from his own statement acknowledging the negligence on his part to properly ensure the same, we are of the opinion that CH definitely has committed violation of the above mentioned Regulations. These Regulations caused a mandatory duty upon the CHA, who is an important link between the Customs Authorities and the importer/exporter. Any dereliction/lack of due diligence since has caused the Exchequer loss in terms of evasion of Customs Duty, the original adjudicating authority has rightly imposed the penalty upon the appellant herein.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1229
Principles of natural justice - cross-examination of the persons denied whose statements were relied upon for issuance of said show cause notice - recording of voluntary statements - reliability on the statements - Misdeclaration of value of imported goods - 14 inch colour picture tube - HELD THAT:- Revenue did not have any evidence to corroborate with the voluntary statements.
It is settled principal of law that the assessment of Bill of Entry is an adjudication order and if within the period provided under customs act appeal before Jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals) is not filed then the assessment becomes final and such final assessment cannot be reopened - In the present case the assessment were made during the period from May 2010 to January 2011 and after the appeal period of around three months were over the said assessment became final and therefore through the said show cause notice dated 29 May, 2015 the said assessments were not open for reassessment.
Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The assessment were finalized during May 2010 to January 2011 and all the information required for assessment was provided by the appellant and therefore the allegation of suppression of fact made on 29 May, 2015 are not sustainable. Therefore, the proceedings are hit by limitation.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1228
Attachment of property under PMLA - scheduled offences - main allegation against the appellant is that alienation of the land to the extent of 231.09 acres was done in favour of the appellant and the M/s Pioneer Infrastructure Holding Ltd, in lieu of the aforesaid alienation, made quid pro quo investment ₹ 53,00,00,000/- in M/s Caramel Asia Holding Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Jagati Publication Pvt. Ltd., which are the companies of Sh. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy - HELD THAT:- In view of the amendment inserted by Act of 13/2018, which is applicable w.e.f. 19.4.2018 where in the 2nd proviso, it is allowed to party to claim the restoration of the said property during the trial by moving the said application, if so required, if the appellant has acted in good faith, would be able to satisfy the Special Court that the appellant is suffering irreparable loss if the claim of the appellant is not allowed.
Being an independent Statute as claim by the respondent, an independent and impartial evidence is to be traced against the person concerned who is stated to be involved in money laundering. Merely on the basis of allegations the respondent with evidence can not attach any property by passing provisional attachment order unless there are reason to believe that the impugned property is definitely involved in money laundering within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) read with Section 3 of the Act - Reason to believe is not a formality but it should akin to prima facie findings that the person concerned is positively involved in money laundering. The provisional attachment order can only be passed if such exercise is done within the four corners of settled law. The meaning of proceeds of crime is any property derived or obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activities relating to a schedule offense.
The provisions of Section 5 and 8 of PMLA are not exactly similar but principles and intend to incorporate the said provision to some are the guiding factors.
The manner in which the provisional attachment order was passed and confirmation thereof in the impugned order, the same cannot continue by attaching commercial properties where the future and career of hundred of employees are involved with regard to commercial properties, the value of the property can be secured by depositing the same with the respondent till the final order is passed by the Special Court.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1227
Restoration of appeal - earlier withdrawn appeal on ground that tax effect was below the monetary limit of ₹ 50,00,000/- - human error - HELD THAT:- Now, the applicant has filed the present application bringing to the notice of the court the fact that the tax effect involved in the captioned tax appeal is ₹ 3,08,44,800/-. Evidently therefore, the appeal was withdrawn on account of an error on part of the applicant. The tax appeal, therefore, deserves to be restored.
For the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1226
Addition made on account of unverifiable purchase - Addition made on account of unverified sundry creditors - assessee is in business of trading in waste paper - estimated income based on NP of turnover - HELD THAT:- The finding recorded by the CIT(A) came to be affirmed by the Tribunal stating that no reason to interfere with the findings and conclusion arrived by the CIT(A) in directing the AO to estimate NP @ 2% of total URD purchases as this view has been consistently adopted and followed by the Department from AY 2006-07 to 2008-09 and for AY 2009-10 same view has been uphold and confirmed by the Tribunal in assessee's own case order dated 27.05.2016 (supra).
We do not find any error, much less an error of law, said to have been committed by the Tribunal in passing the impugned order. We see no good reason to disturb the same.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1225
Allowability of bad debts written off u/s 36(1)(vii) - Exclusion of the amount received as recovery of bad debts written off - taxability u/s 41(4) - in the earlier years deduction had not been allowed in respect of write off of such bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) - Income earned from a foreign branch - whether could not be assessed in India in view of the tax treaty between India and the respective Country? - HELD THAT:- Perusal of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal would show that the Tribunal had merely sent the issues back to the Assessing Officer for proper examination on the additional grounds raised by the assessee before the Tribunal. We are informed that the Assessing Officer has already given effect to such directions of the Tribunal and passed appropriate order, which of course has given rise to further dispute between the assessee and the department. Be that as it may, in facts of the case, we do not think that the Tribunal’s decision gives rise to any substantial question of law.
Depreciation on matured investments securities which were due for redemption in the relevant previous year - NPA - real income theory -Tribunal disallowed the Appellant’s claim for deduction - HELD THAT:- Tribunal has approved the observations of the CIT(A) that the real income theory cannot be so extended so as to negate accrual of an amount which is receivable by the appellant assessee.
In support, reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in Navin R Kamani Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1990 (3) TMI 40 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] . It also held that the concept of real income theory cannot be read so as to defeat the provisions of the Act. Further, the fall in value of security is not an ascertained liability and such adhoc deduction cannot be allowed. The impugned order places reliance upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Indian Molasis Company Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1959 (5) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] and of this Court in Standard Mills Company Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1997 (3) TMI 64 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]
Impugned order of the Tribunal is based on various binding decisions of the Apex Court and this High Court not shown to be inapplicable. Thus, no substantial question of law arises.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1224
Condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) in filing return of income - ruling from the 'Advance Ruling Authority' ('ARA') was sought for taxability of income in India - ARA gave its ruling on 16.08.2016 - return for AY 2014-15 was filed on 06.03.2017 - HELD THAT:- This Court on subject to costs of ₹ 10,000/- being paid and condition being complied, post 01.07.2019, the delay shall stand condoned and the respondent shall take up the returns filed by the writ petitioner on 06.03.2017 being returns for Assessment Year 2014- 15 and carry the same to its logical end in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and in any event within four weeks from 01.07.2019 i.e, on or before 29.07.2019,
-
2019 (6) TMI 1223
Allowability of deduction for payment EPF, LWF and ESI after due date of respective Act u/s 36(1)(va) - Non remittance of employees' contribution and not employers' contribution - HELD THAT:- In the light of the aforesaid dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Popular Vehicles and Services [2018 (8) TMI 133 - KERALA HIGH COURT] hold that, in order to claim the benefit of deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, payment of employees' contribution to Employees' Provident Fund, Labour Welfare Fund and Employees' State Insurance has to be made before the due date prescribed under the relevant statute. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
The Tribunal has found that payments have to be made only before the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) for filing return of income to claim the benefit u/s 36(1)(va). The finding of the Tribunal in this regard is liable to be set aside. Moreover, the Tribunal has directed that the issue regarding deduction u/s 36(1) (va) has to be reconsidered by the assessing officer. In the instant case, the assessee has got no plea that the remittance of employees' contribution to Employees' Provident Fund, Labour Welfare Fund, Employees' State Insurance had been made before the due date prescribed in the respective enactments. Therefore, the direction given by the Tribunal remitting this issue for reconsideration by the assessing officer is also liable to be set aside.
Sale of old and unyielding rubber trees - whether exigible to tax in the light of Rules 7 and 7A of the Income Tax Rules? - sale proceeds of grevellea trees can be treated as capital gains and brought to tax or not? - Whether the provision for gratuity can be added in computing the income u/s 115JB - HELD THAT:- Questions are covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harrisons Malayalam Limited [2019 (1) TMI 1359 - KERALA HIGH COURT] against the revenue.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1222
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Disallowance of claim of depreciation of wind power generation unit - notice issued beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year - HELD THAT:- As during the course of scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer had examined this issue threadbare and had accepted the assessee’s submission and allowed the depreciation on wind mill. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was wholly justified in holding that the reopening was invalid as it was based upon a mere change of opinion.
The notice u/s 148 had been issued beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded a finding of fact to the effect that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for the year under consideration. On behalf of the appellant nothing has been pointed out to dislodge the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal nor has it been pointed out that the Tribunal has placed reliance upon any irrelevant material or that any relevant material has been ignored. Conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal being based on concurrent findings of fact upon appreciation of the material on record, no infirmity can be found in the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the reopening of assessment was invalid.
Claim for depreciation - power generation unit having started its production in March, 2006 - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal as well as the Commissioner (Appeals), have found that the relevant evidence was produced by the assessee on record to establish that the operation of the wind mill had commenced prior to 31.3.2006 and consequently, the assessee was entitled to depreciation on windmill. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1221
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - assessee had made incorrect claims while filing the return assessee has given incorrect details and when it was cornered, it corrected the mistakes - assessee has given incorrect details and when it was cornered, it corrected the mistakes - Tribunal deleted penalty - HELD THAT:- In case of the assessee, the returned income was ₹ 35.37 crores. In these circumstances, the court is in agreement with the view adopted by the Tribunal that in a case of this magnitude, an error of ₹ 1,30,869/- and ₹ 1,01,956/-, which the assessee had on its own accepted as inadvertent mistake, cannot be said to be deliberate so as to amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
Insofar as the penalty in respect of addition made on account of exchange rate fluctuation AO has accepted that the income was booked on capital account by mistake as a result of wrong posting of capital field vouchers in the revenue account. There was a mistake on part of the assessee while filing the return of income. In the opinion of this court, having regard to the findings recorded by the Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal has found the explanation submitted by the assessee to be plausible, which in the opinion of this court is a reasonable view, there is no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. - Decided against revenue
-
2019 (6) TMI 1220
TDS u/s 195 - withhold of tax - software license fees and IT support services - as per AO same was taxable under the Income Tax Act as well as under the DTAA as Royalty - provisions of section 9(1)(vi) or Article 12 of DTAA between India and USA - HELD THAT:- Since provisions of DTAA overrides the provisions of Income Tax Act and since they were more beneficial and the definition of ‘royalty’ having not undergone any change, then the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source out of aforesaid payments made for purchase of software. Following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that assessee was not in default and hence, there was no merit in the demand created u/s 201(1) and charging of interest u/s 201(1A)
The said finding of Tribunal above in JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS DIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) [2019 (3) TMI 458 - ITAT PUNE] would squarely apply to the facts of present case as the CIT(A) also while deciding the appeal has held that the issue raised in present appeal is squarely covered by the orders of CIT(A) in earlier years. Hence, relying on the aforesaid ratio of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier years, we cancel the demand created under section 201(1) and charging of interest under section 201(1A) of the Act in respect of payments made for purchase of software.
TDS on provision of IT support charges i.e. internet charges, use of e-mail facility, backup support services, etc., which was also held to be ‘royalty’ - HELD THAT:- Payments on account of interest charges, line charges, service charges and other charges i.e. VPN charges, online meeting charges, etc. were not payment of royalty and also no technical services were made available, hence there was no requirement for deduction of tax at source. Applying the said ratio to the facts of present case, we accordingly, hold so.
TDS on lease line charges - HELD THAT:- The issue arising in the present appeal on account of payment for lease line charges is identical to the issue before the Tribunal (supra) and following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that there was no requirement to deduct tax at source out of such lease line charges and hence, the assessee had not defaulted in not so deducting.
TDS on payment for web based training fees - HELD THAT:- The first issue was adjudicated by Tribunal (supra) it was concluded that in the absence of any transfer of technology, the payment is not covered under the definition of ‘fees for technical services’ and hence, there was no liability upon the assessee to deduct tax at source out of payments made for web based training. Following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that assessee could not be held to be in default u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) in respect of payments made for web based training.
TDS on payment against reimbursement of expats salaries - HELD THAT:- The said issue was also decided by Tribunal (Supra) and it was held that where the assessee had deducted tax at source out of salary paid to expat employees deputed in India for providing assistance to the employees of assessee, then assessee could not be held to be in default u/s 201(1) and 201(1A). Applying the same parity of reasoning, we hold that there is no merit in raising the demand u/s 201(1) and charging of interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act on this count. - appeal of assessee is allowed
-
2019 (6) TMI 1219
Denial claim of interest expenditure - deduction from the short term capital gain - shares kept for investment purposes as the funds available with M/s. Moti Lal Oswal are mixed funds - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO on the ground that no interest was paid by the assessee for the period prior to purchase of shares. The assessee that the interest expenditure of ₹ 10,76,258/- was incurred on borrowings made for acquisition of investments made in shares and there are no mixed funds and that it is a separate account in which no other transaction has been carried out except of the shares on which short term capital gain has been earned.
It is the submission of assessee that in assessment year 2013-14 assessee has also paid interest to Moti Lal Oswal Financial Services amounting to ₹ 4,90,555/- which was accepted by the department and allowed as deduction from short term capital gain. From the various details furnished by the assessee it requires a re-visit to the file of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issue afresh in the light of the various submissions made by the assessee before me. Needless to say the AO shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per fact and law.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1218
Income from house property - determination of annual letting value (ALV) - property not let out - HELD THAT:- As regards the property at sl. no.1 when the assessee has not let out the property, in such circumstances the Assessing Officer cannot determine the ALV by applying the market rate but he can do so only on the basis of ratable value assessed by the Municipal Corporation. Assessing Officer is directed to verify whether the ALV shown by the assessee is as per ratable value determined by the Municipal Corporation and if it is not so, the Assessing Officer is directed to determine the ALV on the basis of ratable value of Municipal Corporation.
As regards the property at sl. no.2 if the ALV of the property shown by the assessee is more than the ratable value fixed by the Municipal Corporation, then it has to be accepted.
AO has determined the ALV purely on estimate basis without being backed by any material - That being the case, the Assessing Officer is directed to verify the ALV shown by the assessee in respect of properties at sr. no.3 and 5 and if it is found that the ALV shown by the assessee is as per the ratable value of Municipal Corporation or more than that, then it has to be accepted. Otherwise, the Assessing Officer is directed to determine the ALV of these properties as per the ratable value of Municipal Corporation.
As regards property at sr. no.4 of the Table, the ALV has been shown by the assessee as nil - We direct the Assessing Officer to determine the ALV of this property as per the ratable value fixed by the Municipal Corporation. Before parting, we must observe, the Assessing Officer must afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding the issue. Ground no.1 and 2 are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1217
Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) - whether the claim made by the assessee in the return of income was on bonafide consideration or not? - HELD THAT:- Assessee had shifted its unit from one place to another and that 80% of the cost of plant and machinery on the new factory was by way of acquiring new plant and machinery and only less than 20% of cost was towards transferring plant and machinery of the unit. The assessee was under the impression that it was entitled to benefit under section 80IA and it also obtained professional advise in this regard.
The claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80IA came to be rejected in the quantum assessment proceedings. In the penalty proceedings, Tribunal noted that there was no suppression of facts or misrepresentation of facts by the assessee even when the claim was denied in the quantum assessment proceedings. It deleted the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) which was affirmed in the case of Petels Engineers Limited [2013 (11) TMI 1374 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] specifically noted that the claim of the assessee under section 80IA was made under a bonafide belief and therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable. In our considered view, the fact situation before us is quite similar to the fact situation before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Petels Engineers Limited (supra) and, therefore, levy of penalty in the instant case is not justified on this count too. We hold so. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1216
Disallowance of expenses u/s14A read with rule 8D - recording of prima facie satisfaction of the AO - HELD THAT:- As relying on H.T. MEDIA LIMITED VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, NEW DELHI [2017 (8) TMI 962 - DELHI HIGH COURT] AO has simply made observations that there must be some expenses for earning of the exempt income.
AO could not pointed out which are expenses relatable to exempt income or there is prima facie satisfaction of the AO which is mandated by the provisions of section 14A(iii) of the Act. Hence, we are of the view that in the absence of any satisfaction, the AO has erred in making addition and CIT(A) erred by confirming the same. We set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allow this appeal of assessee.
............
|
9911796707
