|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1887 Records
-
2017 (12) TMI 1832
Addition on account of reimbursement of repair charges - spare parts purchased from its AE - HELD THAT:- Reimbursement of actual cost of purchase, then ostensibly there is no requirement of tax deduction at source or withholding of tax while making the payment to non-resident which is not in the nature of income to the non-resident India. It is not the case of the Revenue that there is an element of income which is chargeable to tax in the hands of the non-resident on account of purchase transaction of spare parts and once that is so, then no withholding of tax is required, which proposition has been upheld in various judgments as cited by the learned counsel including that in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (9) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT]
Assessee has not furnished any bill/vouchers invoices for the purchase or assessee could not furnish details of parties to whom it had rendered repair services, we find that assessee had given the detail of the spare parts purchased from its AE, a copy of which is appearing at page 16 of the assessee's paper book which gives the description of the product; the purpose for which such product was purchased; month of purchase amount in US dollars; and conversion date as on debit date, etc. These details goes to show that the products have been imported from the AE for which assessee had made the payment on cost to cost basis. Thus, it cannot be held that the assessee has not imported or purchased the spare parts from its AE and once it is established that the spare parts have been imported, then, liability to pay for the cost of spare parts to its AE arises to the assessee. Further, to prove that assessee has utilized these costs, it has filed copies of AMCs with various parties in India on sample basis. Reasoning given by the Assessing Officer for making the addition on both the counts does not survive and accordingly, ground as raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
Addition on account of expenses claimed in the P & L account - HELD THAT:- As cost of expenditure on account of AE has been loaded by the assessee so as to suggest that the loss incurred by the assessee is attributable due to loading of the cost of the AE. In any case, once the transaction with the AE has not be disturbed and the ALP has been accepted, then such an inference drawn by the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be justified. Learned counsel has also pointed out before us that in all the past year the assessee's case has been made in scrutiny proceedings and in none of the years, there is any whisper that losses incurred by the assessee is an account loading of cost by foreign entity on the assessee. In the past also transfer pricing analysis has been undertaken by the assessee has been accepted in wake of these fact also, the observation and the conclusion of the Assessing Officer is definitely ill founded and cannot be sustained and the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the said addition is confirmed.
Revenue appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1831
Credit of TDs deducted towards Mobilization Advance recovered - HELD THAT:- The Act and Rules are clear that credit of TDS can be granted only in the year in which the income/receipt on which such tax deducted at source is assessable to tax. Thus, in my view the order of Ld. CIT(A) is against the provision of the Act. Hence, the same is reversed and the appeal of the revenue is allowed.
Coming to the cross objection the claim of the assessee is in accordance with Section 199 read with Rule 37BA(3) of the Act. The assessing officer directed to grant credit as per law to the assessee in the year which mobilization receipt is offered to tax as income.Appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off as above.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1830
Reassessment proceedings u/s 148 to a dead person - HELD THAT:- The factum of Tara Bhardwaj death on 11.10.2010 is not in dispute. From the record, it is apparent that the petitioner vide letter dated 03.09.2013 informed the Income Tax Department of Ms.Tara Bhardwaj’s death on 11.10.2010. That information was mechanically receipted and overlooked. The death certificate of Ms. Tara Bhardwaj has now admittedly submitted to the Income Tax Department testifying of her death on 11.10.2010.
It is thus apparent that the notices impugned have been issued to a dead person and cannot sustain.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1829
Smuggling - Proclaimed Offenders - jurisdiction to summon additional accused persons - authenticity of the evidence in terms of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act - HELD THAT:- Issue notice to the standing counsel for the State of Punjab. There shall be stay of further proceedings before the trial Court.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1828
Refund of SAD - rejection of refund on the ground that there is discrepancy in the description between the goods imported and subsequent sale of goods in India - N/N. 102/2007-Cus. as amended - HELD THAT:- The issue is no longer res integra and it has been settled in a number of Tribunal decisions that minor differences in description of goods and sales invoices cannot disentitle the importer from availing benefit of Notification No.102/2007-Cus.
Reliance placed in the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (SEA EXPORT), CHENNAI VERSUS SHRI RAM IMPEX INDIA (P) LTD. [2013 (11) TMI 1354 - CESTAT CHENNAI] where it was held that There is no condition in the Notification that the Bill of Entry number should be mentioned in the sale invoice.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1827
Benefit of exemption u/s 11 & 12 - activities of the trust were not within the purview of Section 2(15) - CIT-A allowed the deduction - HELD THAT:- CIT (A) held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the AY 2009-10, Department preferred an appeal before the Tribunal [2013 (9) TMI 84 - ITAT NEW DELHI] and such an appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal by way of order [2013 (9) TMI 84 - ITAT NEW DELHI] which also shows that it was held therein that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act
Claim of depreciation to the assessee trust - Following the decision of jurisdictional High Court in DIT (E) vs. Indraprastha Cancer Society [2014 (11) TMI 733 - DELHI HIGH COURT] this Tribunal held for the AY 2011-12, that the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on the fixed assets which were claimed on application of income in earlier years. Nothing contrary is brought on record by the Revenue to disturb the findings of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2009-10 & 2011-12 on the aspect of entitlement of the assessee to benefit u/s 11 & 12 of the Act and also to claim depreciation on fixed assets which were claimed as application of income in earlier years. Revenue appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1826
Deduction u/s. 80lB for Goa Unit - sale of scrap as receipts there from was not income from sale of manufactured Products or By Products of the industrial undertaking - Whether CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee u/s. 80lB on income earned from sale of scrap when it was not derived from the activities of the eligible business? - HELD THAT:- We find that similar issue of claim of deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act on sale of scrap generated out of manufacturing process was treated as business income and the deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act was allowed.
The issue arising in the present bunch of appeals filed by the Revenue is identical to the issue in the earlier years [2015 (9) TMI 892 - ITAT PUNE] and there is no change in the factual aspect. Accordingly, we uphold the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1825
Share Holding Agreement entered into between the parties - dispute is predominantly of a civil nature or not - Whether the dispute between the parties is of predominantly civil nature which is tried to be converted to the criminal nature so as to recover the amount which respondent No.3 is claiming as due from the applicant Ramesh Shah?
HELD THAT:- The matter entirely pertains to civil jurisdiction and not even prima facie case is made out in the complaint for the offence punishable under Sections 418, 420,465, 467, 468, 471, 477(a), 506(2) read with 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code. In our opinion, even if the allegations contained in the complaint are taken to be true on their face value, complaint gives a clear impression that it is primarily a case where respondent No.3 is alleging breach of the terms and conditions of the Share Holding Agreement executed between the parties on the ground that the applicant Ramesh Shah is not acting in accordance therewith and not making the payments as demanded by respondent No.3.
Here in the case, it is nowhere alleged in the complaint, even for the sake of it, that since beginning the applicant Ramesh Shah had dishonest or fraudulent intention of cheating the respondent No.3. Conversely, both the parties are having their respective rival contentions for not fulfilling the terms of the Share Holding Agreement. Hence, it is apparent that the grievance is against subsequent non-fulfillment of terms and conditions of the Agreement and not of applicant Ramesh Shah having such intention of cheating since beginning - A clear finding is arrived at, about the allegations made in the complaint, by the Company Law Board totally ruling out mismanagement of the affairs of the company or any fraudulent intention. It was also held that there was no mismanagement and siphoning of funds. The allegations of illegal alteration of share holding and denial of information to the complainant were also negated.
In the case of State of Maharashtra and ors -vs- Arun Gulab Gawali, [2010 (8) TMI 1150 - SUPREME COURT], relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No.3, Court has explained the parameters and ambit of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the light of decision of Apex Court, in case of State of Haryana -vs- Bhajanlal [1990 (11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT]. Applying those very parameters, here in the case it is found that allowing prosecution to continue when the dispute is of civil nature and does not disclose commission of cognizable offence, would be an abuse of process of law as the complaint is filed to recover only funds from applicant Ramesh Shah for which respondent No.3 has already filed civil suit.
Application allowed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1824
Money Laundering - allegations of irregularities and bribery - attachment of the properties, being the proceeds of crime - HELD THAT:- There is a schedule attached to the Act. It contains a list of various enactments and the offences created thereunder, which are to be treated as scheduled offences. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is one of the Acts mentioned in the schedule. Section 7 of this Act pertains to public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act and Section 13 relates to criminal misconduct by a public servant. Both of these offences are thus scheduled offences as per Section 2(1)(y) of the Act - “proceeds of crime” is a property derived by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. Anyone who directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with proceeds of crime, including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property commits the offence of moneylaundering. Thus, for commission of an offence of moneylaundering, there should be a scheduled offence and out of that offence, the accused must have derived or obtained proceeds of crime and having obtained such proceeds, must have projected or claimed it as untainted.
Thus, “Proceeds of crime” is the essence and an indispensable element of the offence of moneylaundering. It is the core constituent of the offence. Without the existence of proceeds of crime, there cannot be any commission of an offence of moneylaundering. It is only when “proceeds of crime” is projected or attempted to be projected as untainted property, the offence of money laundering arises.
In nutshell, the existence of a scheduled offence and emergence of “proceeds of crime” therefrom, is sine qua non for the existence of the offence of moneylaundering.
It is the case of the prosecution that subsequently on the registration of criminal case by CBI and arrest of Sh. A. Raja, this amount was returned and this was done by executing several expost documents to project this amount as untainted, that is, regular commercial transactions. Hence, this amount of ₹ 200 crore was derived from a criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence and, as such, constituted “proceeds of crime” and these “proceeds of crime” were projected, both during transfer from Dynamix Realty to Kalaignar TV (P) Limited and vice versa, as genuine business transactions and these acts constituted an offence of moneylaundering by all the accused involved in the case - in the present case, the alleged “proceeds of crime” were generated for the favours allegedly shown by Sh. A. Raja to STPL in the matter of grant of thirteen UAS licences. Thus, the entire case hinges upon “proceeds of crime” of ₹ 200 crore, which were generated when DB Group paid an illegal gratification of ₹ 200 crore to Sh. A. Raja, which was parked in Kalaignar TV (P) Limited.
Since there are no “proceeds of crime”, there is no need to discuss other issues based on evidence led by the parties, as that would amount to an exercise, not only in speculation but also in futility, as the very basic fact required for constitution of an offence of moneylaundering, that is, “proceeds of crime”, is knocked out - all accused are entitled to be acquitted and are acquitted.
Application disposed off.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1823
Criminal misconduct of the officials of State Bank of India for undue waiver of interest - accused failed to pay dues to Government of India - non-payment of percentage of net sale proceeds to Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation as per NOC - HELD THAT:- This court finds that the subject property was put to e-auction for the first time on 17.02.2011 fixing reserve price as ₹ 209.54 crores. The second and third auction date was fixed on 09.03.2011 and 04.01.2012 with same reserve price. Thereafter paper publication effected for auction on 05.10.2012, 05.11.2012 and 23.01.2013 with revised reserve price of ₹ 250/- crores. Meanwhile M/s. RMZ properties, Bangalore has offered ₹ 298/- crores for this property but sale not confirmed in its favour but sold to 5th Accused Company through private negotiation for ₹ 272 Crores. Whether such deal was outcome of any criminal design between the Bank Officials and the buyer is now under investigation. No doubt the FIR contains certain wrong information about the character of HTL and the quantum of alleged loss. As stated in the counter, a prime property in the heart of the City had been sold through private negotiation far below the guidelines value.
Unless the investigation gets completed this court cannot jump to a conclusion that the petitioners are innocent bonafide purchaser and not privy to the alleged crime - Petition dismissed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1822
Deduction u/s 43B - agricultural income tax paid by the assessee during the assessment years concerned - AO held that section 43B(a) will not have application since agricultural income tax is not a tax “otherwise allowable” under the Income-tax Act - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the agricultural income is exempt from Central Income tax by virtue of provisions of section 10(1) of the Income-tax Act. When agricultural income itself is exempt from the purview of Central Income tax, there is no reason why a payment made out of agricultural income (already exempt) should be allowed as a deduction in computing the business income under the Central Income-tax Act. Section 43B states that “a deduction otherwise allowable under this Act” shall alone be allowed as a deduction u/s 43B(a). Since the agricultural income tax is not tax “otherwise allowable” under the Income-tax Act, payment of agricultural income tax in the respective assessment years on payment basis cannot be allowed as a deduction u/s 43B(a).
DR as well as the AR was unable to enlighten us what has happened subsequent to the remand by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000. For our reasoning in aforesaid paragraph we hold that the agricultural income being exempt from taxation under the Central Income-tax, the agricultural income tax paid by the assessee cannot be allowed as a deduction under the Central Incometax. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is reversed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1821
Principles of natural justice - reliability of statement of the witnesses who are not available for the cross-examination - HELD THAT:- The revenue has not taken stand whether the adjudicating authority proposes to rely on the statements of 29 witnesses in respect of whom cross-examination opportunity has yet not been granted to the petitioner. The proceedings cannot be allowed to conclude in such uncertain facts.
It is, therefore, desirable that the revenue may file a counter affidavit to the writ petition disclosing a clear stand in respect of the above within the next four weeks. Two weeks, thereafter, to the petitioner to file a rejoinder affidavit.
List after six weeks.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1820
CENVAT Credit - input services - Rent-A-Cab Service - Outdoor Catering Service - Hotel Charges - Maintenance & Repair Vehicles service - Insurance Premiums Service for workmen - penalty - HELD THAT:- The issue of admissibility of credit of service tax paid on Outdoor Catering Service, Hotel Service and Insurance Premiums for workmen are covered by the judgement of this Tribunal in the case of Ivy Competech P. Ltd., [2015 (9) TMI 1090 - CESTAT BANGALORE] and Mangalore Refinery Petrochemicals Ltd., [2016 (1) TMI 481 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], respectively.
Rent-a-Cab - Maintenance & Repair of vehicles - HELD THAT:- In view of the specific exclusion relating to Rent-a-Cab and Maintenance & Repair of vehicles Services after 1.04.2011, the credit availed on these services is inadmissible.
Penalty - HELD THAT:- Since there was confusion about eligibility of credit on the Rent-a-Cab Service, after the amendment, therefore, penalty is not warranted taking credit on the services.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1819
Seeking summon for the purpose of facing the trial - offences punishable Under Sections 120-B, 363, 366, 368, 370(4) and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 3/4 and 16/17 of POCSO Act - HELD THAT:- The Single Judge seemed to have passed the impugned order without application of judicial mind inasmuch as he committed two glaring errors while passing the order. First, he failed to see that the Complainant at whose instance the Sessions Judge had passed the order and had allowed his application Under Section 193 of the Code was a necessary party to the criminal revision along with the State. Therefore, he should have been impleaded as Respondent along with the State in the revision. In other words, the Complainant also had a right of hearing in the Revision because the order impugned in the Revision was passed by the Session Judge on his application. This aspect of the case was, however, not noticed by the Single Judge.
The High Court had no jurisdiction to direct the Sessions Judge to "allow" the application for grant of bail. Indeed, once such direction had been issued by the High Court then what was left for the Sessions Judge to decide except to follow the directions of the High Court and grant bail to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In other words, in compliance to the mandatory directions issued by the High Court, the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to reject the bail application but to allow it.
When an order is passed, it can be questioned by the aggrieved party in appeal or revision, as the case may be, to the superior Court. It is then for the Appellate/Revisionary Court to decide as to what orders need to be passed in exercise of its Appellate/Revisionary jurisdiction. Even while remanding the case to the subordinate Court, the Superior Court cannot issue a direction to the subordinate Court to either "allow" the case or "reject" it. If any such directions are issued, it would amount to usurping the powers of that Court and would amount to interfering in the discretionary powers of the subordinate Court. Such order is, therefore, not legally sustainable - It is the sole discretion of the Sessions Judge to find out while hearing the bail application as to whether any case on facts is made out for grant of bail by the Accused or not.
The High Court could have made an observation to the effect that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Accused persons) are at liberty to approach the Sessions Judge for grant of bail and, if any application is filed, it would be decided by the Sessions Judge on its merits and in accordance with law expeditiously but not beyond it - Appeal allowed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1818
Seeking release on Bail - investigation was not completed within the stipulated period of ninety days thus rendering his continued incarceration in judicial custody illegal - section 167(2) of Cr.P.C - HELD THAT:- The role of the Petitioner appears to be limited to the extent of operating illegal gateways using SIM cards allegedly procured through fraudulent mean from the various telecom service providers and giving access to people to make and receive international calls routed partly over VoIP and partly though the cellular networks and thereby cause loss to the public exchequer.
When the bail applications of the Petitioner and similarly placed co-accused persons were being heard, it was submitted on behalf of the State that investigation was going on to ascertain if the role of the Petitioner and similarly placed co-accused persons were limited to operating illegal gateways to facilitate communication in a manner not approved by the Department of Telecommunications or were the Petitioner and the similarly placed co-accused persons involved in the larger conspiracy of assisting terror related activities in the State of J&K and other parts of the country. This would show that, as regards the Petitioner herein, investigation was still continuing to unearth the extent of his role and to see if he had a role to play in the larger conspiracy. In that case, the substratum of the offence suspected to have been committed by the Petitioner is still under investigation and therefore the investigation into the involvement of the Petitioner cannot be said to have been completed.
On the date on which the police report was filed, it was conceded to by the police itself that investigation against those under custody was still pending. This factor when seen in conjunction with the fact that the police report was filed at the fag end of the ninety-day period after which the Petitioner would have been eligible for default bail makes it apparent that the charge sheet against the Petitioner has been filed only with the intent of frustrating the right of the Petitioner to apply for default bail u/s. 167(2) Cr.P.C.
The petition succeeds and the Petitioner shall be released on bail u/s.167(2) Cr.P.C upon such conditions set by the Ld. Trial Court - Petition allowed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1817
Disallowance of claim u/s 35(1)(ii) on payment of brand equity subscription, building repair and commission expenses - CIT(A) directing the AO to allow expenditure by holding that the only requirement for claiming expenses is that it should be incurred on research related activities and should be revenue in nature - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) while dealing with the above ground has considered the facts and submissions and has categorically mentioned that during the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee has furnished necessary documents, which were furnished before the AO and after appreciating the documents had concluded that the expenses incurred by the assessee were on the improvement of the designs of the existing machinery. - No new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld CIT (A) - no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings recorded by the LCIT (A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. - Decided against revenue.
Disallowance for repairs to leased building by disregarding provisions of section 30/37 - Assessee submitted that the assessee has incurred expenses towards repairs on leased premises - revenue authorities disallowed the same by holding that only ‘current repairs’ are allowable as deduction u/s 30 - HELD THAT:- As per the facts of the present case, the assessee entered into lease agreement of Tata Motors wherein the plot of land along with building was leased out to the assessee for a period of 60 months. Those expenses incurred by the assessee pertain to the current year i.e. during the substances of agreement. The assessee has already placed on record the details of expenses incurred on repairs. In this respect, we wish to place reliance on the following judicial precedents in the case of CIT Vrs. HEDE Consultancy Ltd. [2002 (6) TMI 19 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that expenditure incurred by the assessee on repairs and renovation of premises taken on lease was revenue expenditure and allowable u/s 30 - we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and hold that the expenditure for the current repair incurred by the assessee are allowable u/s 30 - Decided in favour of assessee.
Disallowance of commission expenses paid - As per the provisions of section 37(1) it is mandate of law that deduction under these provisions can be claimed if the same is laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. As per the facts of the present case, the assessee has paid the commission based on the order being received through such commission agent. It was also submitted that the commission was paid in accordance with the agreement entered into with the parties, which is binding on the company. The Ld. AR also drawn our attention to the paper book which contains agreement, sample invoice, bank statements, etc.
Whereas on the contrary, no evidence has been brought on the record by the AO to rebut the same. It is also important to mention that the books of account of the assessee and the sales income of the assessee have not questioned /rejected by the AO.
We have gone through the judgment cited Nikunj Exim Enterprises Ltd. [2013 (1) TMI 88 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that mere non-receipt of reply to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act should not be a basis for making disallowance. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1816
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - transaction of sale of Iron Ore through E-auction - AO had failed to enquire into the claims of deduction on account of 15% of E-auction sale proceeds and the compensation paid for illegal mining and dumping on the illegal site - HELD THAT:- The appellant had not made any direct sales. The stock is under the control of the Central Empowered Committee. It is only the Central Empowered Committee alone which is empowered to conduct the Eauction in terms of the Hon’ble Supreme Court order. The material factor to be taken into consideration is that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had passed the order after the end of the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration. In the given facts of the case, it cannot be said that the sale proceeds had accrued to the appellant though it was following mercantile system of accounting as there was no accrual of right to receive payment, having regard to the ratio laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court laid down in the cases of CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co [1962 (3) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT]
Thus, it is clear that the sale proceeds had accrued to the appellant only by virtue of the order of the Director of Department of Mines and Geology vide proceedings No.DMG/MONCOM/E-Auction/2012- 13 dated 03.01.2013. The taxability or otherwise of it can be considered only during the period ending on 31.03.2013, whereas the assessment year before us is pertaining to the previous year ending on 31.03.2012.
As appellant had offered an income which is not assessable for that year. Even after the deductions, there was income offered to tax which is not otherwise assessable for the assessment year under consideration. It is the duty of the AO to assess the correct income in the right assessment year. However, this failure of the AO had not resulted in any prejudice to the revenue. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the AO, though erroneous, but cannot be termed as prejudicial to the interests of revenue - pre-conditions for invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act, the twin conditions that order is erroneous and also prejudial to interests of revenue are required to be satisfied simultaneously - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1815
Mark to market losses on account of diminution in the value of outstanding equity derivatives - diminution in the value of stock-in-trade - HELD THAT:- Neither the AO nor CIT(A) has discussed the facts but we find from the details that the assessee has valued outstanding equity derivative transactions at lower of cost or market value in the balance sheet as on 31-03-2010. Admittedly, the assessee has debited mark to market losses on account of diminution in the value of outstanding equity derivatives.
This issue has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Woodward Governor India P. Ltd: [2009 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] wherein, it is clearly held that losses suffered by the assessee on account of fluctuation in the rate of foreign exchange has on the date of balance sheet is item of expense under section 37(1) - For valuing closing stock at the end of the year, the value prevailing on the last date is relevant because profit and loss is embedded in the closing stock. While anticipated loss is taken into account and the anticipated profit in the shape of appreciation of value of the closing stock is to be brought into accounts. In view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that the assessee is entitled to this loss and he has rightly claim so. Accordingly, we reverse the orders of the lower authorities and allow this claim of the assessee.
TDS u/s 192/194H - disallowance of commission payment for non-deduction of TDS invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) - HELD THAT:- Respectfully following the assessee’s own case for AY 2005-06 [2016 (6) TMI 1431 - ITAT MUMBAI] it is that to held the commission paid to the directors in the nature of salary and hence, no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 40a(ia) of the Act because there is no provision for disallowance of salary under the provisions of section 40a(ia) of the Act.. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals of Revenue.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1814
Seeking grant of bail - smuggling - currency - currency seized from possession of the accused is not exceeding ₹ 1 crore the offence is bailable one, or not - offence under Section 135(1)(a,b,c) of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- Having considered the submissions made by rival sides and the material made available for my perusal by way of case diary as well as the documents relied upon by the accused-petitioner but without expressing any final opinion on the merit and de-merit of the case, this is not found to be a fit case, wherein, indulgence of granting bail may be granted by this Court, hence, the application filed on behalf of accused-petitioner Arpit Jain u/s. 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
Application dismissed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1813
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- Identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in the immediately preceding assessment year and the Tribunal held the reassessment proceedings as not valid in the present case, the reopening was done only on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court [2015 (10) TMI 754 - DELHI HIGH COURT] the reopening was not valid and the subsequent assessment framed was void ab initio. Accordingly, the same is set-aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.
........
|
9911796707
