|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1516 Records
-
2022 (7) TMI 1437 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Non-registration of documents relating to certain immovable properties, said to be belonging to one M/s Adarsh Credit Co-operative Societies Limited. - HELD THAT:- This Court, finds that after filing of writ petitions, the Authorities have passed order, under Section 8 of the Act of 2002, and as such, the final attachment order has been issued - This Court, finds that none of the petitioners have ever made any application in their petitions for amendment, and as such, this Court has to consider as whether these writ petitions can be heard by this Court in view of final attachment orders, which have already been passed by the Authorities on 31.03.2020.
This Court further finds that during pendency of the writ petitions, if the final attachment order has been issued and the petitioners feel aggrieved against such order, then they are required to take necessary remedy to assail the same orders under the law.
This Court, accordingly, dismiss these writ petitions with liberty to the petitioners to take appropriate legal remedy for challenging the subsequent orders, which have been passed by the Authority, wherein final attachment orders have been passed - The issue of locus and jurisdiction raised by the respondents before the Appellate Forum, can always be decided after hearing both the parties as per law.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1436 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - reopening beyond period of 4 years - notice u/s 148 issued beyond the period of limitation after the expiry of the relevant AY - HELD THAT:- Following the order of this Court in M/s. Ambika Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd [2022 (1) TMI 1291 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] the impugned notice and the consequential notices are hereby quashed. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. The interim order is vacated.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1435 - CUSTOMS AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS CUSTOMS, MUMBAI
Classification of goods intended to be imported - 17 enzyme products - to be classifiable under heading 3507 or under heading 2309? - HELD THAT:- The impugned products are a combination of active ingredients and inactive ingredients such as antioxidants, minerals and stabilisers - These goods consist of active ingredients, preservatives, stabilisers and carriers. As per HSN explanatory notes, active ingredients with a suitable carrier along with additives required for preservation and transport is a premix, which is added to the complete animal feed or supplementary animal feed.
The Hon'ble Tribunal in RECKITT AND COLMAN OF INDIA LTD., CALCUTTA VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA [1985 (4) TMI 306 - CEGAT NEW DELHI] has held that to qualms as a preparation the said product should be prepared by addition, mixing or such other similar process to the original commodity in order to derive a new commodity. From the above, it is clear that the products under consideration are preparations, also known as premixes.
It is observed that heading 2309 is an end-use-based heading. In this regard, reliance may be placed on the decision of Hon'ble in the case of TETRAGON CHEMIE (P) LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF C. EX., BANGALORE [1998 (9) TMI 390 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI], wherein it was held that end-use assumes importance in determining the classification of goods under heading 2302 of CETA, 1985. The same is because the description of the goods under heading 2302 reads as 'Preparations of a kind used for animal feeding including cat and dog food'. The heading specifically states that the preparations must be used for animal feeding. Therefore, heading 2302 is an end-use-based heading. It must be noted that heading 2302 of CETA, 1985 is akin to Heading 2309 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
As per the HSN explanatory note, the heading 2309 excludes protein substances of Chapter 35. However, the impugned products contain these protein substances, i.e. enzymes in very small quantities. They can't be considered as protein only product, rather they are products containing enzymes among other substances like stabilisers, solvents, preservatives and carriers. Therefore, the impugned goods do not appear to be hit by the above-mentioned exclusion clause.
It is to be noted that the active ingredient present in the impugned goods is in the range of 1.2% to 17%. The products, apart from enzymes, also include stabilisers, solvents, preservatives and carriers. The inclusion of such additives makes the impugned products suitable for specific use. Therefore, while classifying the product as a whole need to be considered rather than only the active ingredient present in the specific product. The products, are specifically used to enhance nutrient digestibility and help in enhancing the nutritive value of the animal feed. Therefore, the said products do not merit classification under heading 3507.
The 17 products listed in Table 1 are classifiable under heading 2309 and more specifically, under subheading 23099090 of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1434 - CUSTOMS AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, MUMBAI
Classification of goods intended to be imported - carotenoid products, namely Lucantin Red 10% NXT, Lucantin Yellow 10% NXT and Lucantin Pink - to be classified under heading 3204 of HSN or not? - HELD THAT:- The impugned products are a combination of active ingredients and other ingredients such as antioxidants, minerals and stabilisers - These goods consist of active ingredients, preservatives, anti-oxidants and carriers. As per HSN explanatory notes, active ingredients (vitamins, pro vitamins, amino acids, etc) with a suitable carrier along with additives required for preservation and transport is a premix, which is added to the complete animal feed or supplementary animal feed.
The Hon'ble Tribunal in RECKITT AND COLMAN OF INDIA LTD., CALCUTTA VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA [1985 (4) TMI 306 - CEGAT NEW DELHI] has held that to qualms as a preparation the said product should be prepared by addition, mixing or such other similar process to the original commodity in order to derive a new commodity. From the above, it is clear that the products under consideration are preparations, also known as premixes.
It is observed that heading 2309 is an end-use-based heading. In this regard, reliance may be placed on the decision of the large bench of the Hon'ble tribunal in the case of TETRAGON CHEMIE (P) LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF C. EX., BANGALORE [1998 (9) TMI 390 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI], wherein it was held that end-use assumes importance in determining the classification of goods under heading 2302 of CETA, 1985. The same is because the description of the goods under heading 2302 reads as 'Preparations of a kind used for animal feeding including cat and dog food'. The heading specifically states that the preparations must be used for animal feeding. Therefore, heading 2302 is an end-use-based heading.
It is to be noted that the active ingredient presents in the impugned goods, i.e., carotenoid, does not exceed 10% by composition (Table 4). Further, it can be observed that heading 3204 pertains to synthetic organic colouring matter or preparations based on synthetic organic colouring matter. However, the impugned goods are not simple colouring matters, rather they are compound preparations used for animal feed as additives having active ingredients such as carotenoids. HSN explanatory notes state that certain of these substances are also used as laboratory reagents or for medical purposes - The impugned products are not used for their dyeing properties. They are specifically used as animal feed for improvement in the quality of eggs and skin due to pigmentation after consumption. Therefore, the said products do not merit classification under heading 3204.
The 3 products, i.e., Lucantin Red 10% NXT, Lucantin Yellow 10% NXT and Lucantin Pink are classifiable under heading 2309 and more specifically, under subheading 23099090 of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1433 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Direction to concerned authorities to produce the respondent for custodial interrogation - diversion and sale of duty-free gold bullion in the domestic market with the active involvement of the respondent - fabrication of export documents - HELD THAT:- The Gazetted Officer of customs shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry. That does not mean that power is vested upon the Officer of customs to collect information which would otherwise be termed as incriminating material from the person against whom accusation is made.
A person cannot be deprived of his life or personal liberty, except according to procedure established by law as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, we have got Article 20 (3), which says that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Though not it can be termed that examining the person against whom accusation is made as a witness, the police or the other officials who are investigating a case cannot be permitted to compel a person against whom accusation is made to make a statement either inculpatory or exculpatory. It is the duty of the Investigating Agency under whatever cadre it may be to investigate the case and to cull out the truth - Permission cannot be accorded for interrogating him only for the purpose of recording his statement for proceeding with the investigation. This Court does not find any other grounds, more so justifiable grounds, to accord such permission.
The criminal petition is dismissed.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1432 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of Anticipatory bail - applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged - HELD THAT:- Since under the sections in which the charge sheet has been filed the punishment is upto seven years, therefore, it is expected from the learned court below to abide by the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court inSATENDER KUMAR ANTIL VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR. [2021 (10) TMI 1296 - SUPREME COURT], SIDDHARTH VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. [2021 (8) TMI 977 - SUPREME COURT] and AMAN PREET SINGH VERSUS C.B.I., THROUGH DIRECTOR [2021 (10) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] as the law propounded by the Apex Court is the law of land and everyone is duty bound to follow such law in its letter and spirit. It is also observed that the present applicant shall also cooperate with the trial Neutral proceedings properly.
There is no need to pass any order granting anticipatory bail as prima facie it appears that there is no apprehension of the arrest of the present applicant - instant anticipatory bail application is disposed off.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1431 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Jurisdiction - power of respondent to prefer the Contempt Petition instead of filing a fresh application in terms of the Section 7 of the Code - HELD THAT:- The approach of the Respondent is totally fallacious as it did not understand the order dated 18.09.2019 (Annexure A-3) of the Adjudicating Authority in which, while passing the order of dismissal as withdrawn, the Adjudicating Authority had given the liberty to it to file a fresh petition in case of breach of consent terms. Instead of filing a fresh petition under Section 7 of the Code, on the pretext that there was a breach of consent of terms, the Contempt Petition was filed which is totally uncalled for and unwarranted.
The Contempt Petition was not maintainable at all as it has been filed while misunderstanding the order dated 18.09.2019 (Annexure A-3) the Adjudicating Authority was to consider as to whether the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority has been violated or not but the Adjudicating Authority do not have the jurisdiction to direct the party to the lis to get the FIR registered as has been done in the present case.
Appeal allowed.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1430 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Clandestine Removal - difference in figures of audit report and ER-1 return for the year 2006-07 - suppression of production of 1455.205 MT of steel ingots and 395.160 MT of steel rolled products in the daily stock accounts - evasion of Central Excise Duty - Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant being a public limited company the financial records are available on net all the times. But, the show cause notice has been issued on 01.03.2011 by invoking extended period of limitation.
Apart from difference in figures of financial records and ER-1 return, no investigation was conducted to establish clandestine removal of goods which is serious allegation. No statement of has been recorded. In that circumstances the charge of clandestine removal of goods not sustainable as similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of M/S CHANDUKA HI-TECH STEEL PVT. LTD. VERSUS CESTAT, KOLKATA [2017 (11) TMI 2026 - CESTAT KOLKATA] where Tribunal has observed that the allegation of clandestine activities are serious allegation and are required to be based upon the evidences, which reflected upon the same. In the present case, the Revenue has not made any investigation as regards the clandestine manufacture and clearance of the appellant’s final product. In such a scenario, the said finding is neither warranted nor justified.
Time and again it is held by the judicial pronouncements that merely on the basis of difference in the figures of audit report and ER-1 return without establishing the parameters of clandestine manufacture and removal of goods, the charge of clandestine removal is not sustainable. Therefore, on merits also, we hold that in the absence of any statement or investigation against the appellant with corroborative evidence, the impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly, the same is set aside.
Appeal allowed.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1429 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Revocation of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of security deposit - levy of penalty - importer alleged to be indulging in trade based money laundering by overvaluing the imported goods was issued to the importers - HELD THAT:- From the facts as stated in the inquiry report and in the impugned order, it is quite evident that the entire case made against the appellant is on account of their failure not to properly and completely verify the antecedents of the person/ client entrusting them with the paper and consignment for import. It is now settled preposition of law that there was no need for physical visit to the premises and meeting with the client by the CB before taking the job of clearance of the goods either for import or export. Principal Commissioner has relied upon the statement recorded during the course of investigation. These statements have not been corroborated. Even the statutory documents produced by the appellant for undertaking the KYC of the importer (IEC Holder) have not been found fake during investigation - The CB was require to do the KYC on the basis of the documents prescribed. Undisputedly such KYC was done by the appellant, only what was not done was physical meeting and physical verification of the premises.
In the case of M/S POONIA & BROTHERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREV.) [2019 (4) TMI 911 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal held that The CHA is not supposed to verify the each and every aspect about the business of importer as the Inspector of Department or Investigating agency. From the submission made by the ld. Advocate and fact on record, it is apparent that the appellant has taken due diligence while verifying the KYC of the appellant based on the record submitted by him.
In the present case the contravention alleged against the importer is non-declaration of retail sale price on auto parts imported by them for assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for CVD - it is found that the bill of entry was filed by the appellant after the goods were detained by the officers of DRI. The said bill of entry was filed on first check basis for verification of the goods before assessment. In such a situation, there are no mala fide or intentional violation of any provisions of the Customs Act can be alleged on the part of the Customs broker.
In the case of SETWIN SHIPPING AGENCY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUS. (GENERAL) , MUMBAI [2009 (9) TMI 759 - CESTAT MUMBAI], the Tribunal held that there is no requirement for the CHA to verify physically the premises of importer/exporter. The Tribunal also observed that it is a settled law that the punishment has to be commensurate and proportionate to the offence committed - In the present case, it is noticed that the punishment of revocation is not justifiable even if it is to be admitted that physical verification of the importer’s premises could have avoided the filing of the bill of entry by the appellant. Even in such a situation, the violation in respect of the cargo viz. the non-declaration of the RSP on the auto parts, a debatable point of interpretation, cannot be held against the appellant to result in the revocation of their licence.
Admittedly, the Customs Broker enjoyed a very important position in the Customs House and has been licensed to undertake the work of Customs clearance on behalf of the importer. However, he does not replace the Customs Officer. Commissioner has relied upon the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 15, even without referring to the facts.
There are no merit in the impugned order and the same is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1428 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Violation of the SEBI Act - misrepresentation of financials and violation of the accounting standards - non-furnishing of information to the Forensic Auditor was violative of Section 11(2)(i) of the SEBI Act - appellants were debarred from accessing the securities market - Penalty imposed - HELD THAT:- A clear finding has been given that there is no misappropriation of the funds of the Company nor there is any manipulation in the price of the scrip. No fraud has been played by the Company and its Directors to its investors and shareholders. Further, finding given is, that the violation of the LODR Regulations gave no disproportionate gain to anyone nor created any unfair advantage to the appellants nor any specific loss was caused to any investor.
Thus, in the absence of any finding of any fraudulent activities or misappropriation of funds or diversion of fund, we are of the opinion that the directions of debarment and the penalty given for violation of the LODR Regulations appears to be harsh and excessive.
In the instant case, the appellants were debarred from accessing the securities market for a period of one year w.e.f. July 08, 2021 this period of debarment has already been undergone by the appellants. Consequently, no further orders are required to be passed on this score. In so far as the penalty is concerned, we are of the opinion, that the quantum is harsh and excessive and does not commensurate with the alleged violation of non-disclosure under the LODR Regulations. Since no disproportionate gain was caused to any person nor caused any loss to any investor nor caused any unfair advantage to the Company or its Directors we are of the opinion that the penalty should be reduced by 75% meaning thereby that a penalty of 25% of the penalty imposed by the WTM would be just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Accordingly, while affirming the violation committed by the appellants, we reduce the penalty to 25% of the penalty imposed by the WTM. The appeal is partly allowed. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1427 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - jurisdiction to grant protection to the applicants - scope of transit or anticipatory bail - HELD THAT:- This court finds that there is no legislation or law which defines ''transit or anticipatory bail' in definitive or specific terms. The 41st Law Commission Report in 1969 recommended the provision of Anticipatory bail to safeguard the right to life and personal liberty of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, on such recommendation, provision of Anticipatory Bail was inserted in Section 438. The term ''transit' means the act of being moved from one place to another while the word ''anticipatory bail' means a temporary release of any accused person who is anticipating arrest, therefore, transit anticipatory bail refers to bail granted to any person who is apprehending arrest by police of a State other than the State he is presently located in.
It is to be noted that transit bail is protection from arrest for a certain definite period as granted by the Court granting such transit bail. The mere fact that an accused has been granted transit bail, does not means that the regular court, under whose jurisdiction the case would fall, would extend such transit bail and would convert such transit bail into anticipatory bail. Upon the grant of transit bail, the accused person, who has been granted such transit bail, has to apply for anticipatory bail before the regular court.
In the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of TEESTA ATUL SETALVAD AND ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [2014 (1) TMI 1931 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] it was held that the High Court of one State can grant transit bail in respect of a case registered within the jurisdiction of another High Court in exercise of power under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears from the said judgment that there is no fetter on the part of the High Court in exercising the power under Section 438 of the Code in granting anticipatory bail for a limited period to enable the applicant to move the appropriate Court as the gravity of pretrial arrest and the loss of liberty of the individual cannot be compromised on the anvil of the powers, competence and/or jurisdiction of the Court.
There is no fetter on the part of the High Court in granting a transit anticipatory bail to enable the applicants to approach the Courts including High Courts where the offence is alleged to have been committed and the case is registered. There is no doubt that the right to liberty is enshrined in Part-1 of the Constitution of India and such rights cannot be impinged except by following procedure established by law. This court finds that the commercial transaction ensued between the applicants and the complainant and there are criminal cases lodged by the parties against each other. It is a fit case where the applicants should get the privilege of transit pre-arrest bail - Application allowed.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1426 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Income taxable in India - Addition of recharacterization of receipts from sale of software licenses to Indian customers/distributors as royalty - taxing the same receipts in hands of Respondent would result in double taxation - HELD THAT:- In the opinion of this Court, the issue of taxability of software receipts in the present cases is no longer res integra as the Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited [2021 (3) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT] amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty for the use of copyright in the computer software, and that the same does not give rise to any income taxable in India, as a result of which the persons referred to in section 195 of the Income Tax Act were not liable to deduct any TDS under section 195 - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1425 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Rejection of refund claim on the account of being time barred - application for refund made on 28-5-2021 for the tax period May 2018 to July 2018 was time barred or not? - period of limitation prescribed under section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 stood extended in view of the order dated 23-3-2000 passed by the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020 and successive orders or not.
HELD THAT:- Various High Courts have decided the issue in favour of the Assessee on the same question of applicability of the period of limitation in making refund application such as, Madras High Court in W.P No. 18165 & 18168 of 2021 [2021 (11) TMI 973 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and analogous cases dated 28-9-2021 M/s GNC Indra LLP Rep. by Partner/Authorized Signatory versus Assistant Commissioner (Circle), High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition (L) No. 1275/2021 dated 10-1-2022 Saiher Supply Chain Consulting Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India and Ors. [2022 (1) TMI 494 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and High Court of Allahabad in Writ Tax No. 173/2022 dated 3-3-2022 in Gamma Ganna Limited v. Union of India and Ors. [2022 (3) TMI 578 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] - By the aforesaid decisions, it has been held that the order passed by the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020 IN RE COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION [2021 (5) TMI 564 - SC ORDER] would govern the application for refund made under the GST Act - the views of jurisdictional High Courts are agreed upon.
As per the Scheme of CGST Act and Rules, any such application for refund has to be processed within the time period and in case such refund application is to be rejected, a proper show-cause notice in Form-GST-RFD-08 has to be issued before the order of rejection containing the grounds is passed in Form-GST-RFD-06 i.e. with due opportunity to the person/Assessee. It therefore, clearly shows that the proceedings are in the nature of quasi-judicial proceeding which also get the benefit of extension of time limit, as per the orders passed by the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition from time to time.
CBIC Circular dated 20-7-2021, cannot narrow down the scope of the order passed by the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
The rejection of the refund application by the impugned order at Annexure-5 dated 1-7-2021 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Respondent No. 3 to take a fresh decision in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing, if necessary - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1424 - SC ORDER
Maintainability of reassessment under Section 43 of the OVAT Act - absence of completion of assessment under Sections 39, 40, 42 or 44 of the OVAT Act - HELD THAT:- The High Court has passed the impugned order(s) on the interpretation of relevant provisions, more particularly Section 43(1) of the Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004, which was prevailing prior to the amendment - the view taken by the High Court is agreed upon - No interference of this Court is called for in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
SLP dismissed.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1423 - ITAT BANGALORE
Levy of interest u/s. 234E for filing TDS returns belatedly - intimation u/s. 200A - Scope of provisions of section 234E of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.7.2012 - HELD THAT:- As relying on the case of Fatehraj Singhvi [2016 (9) TMI 964 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] wherein held that amendment made u/s. 200A providing that fee u/s. 234E of the Act could be computed at the time of processing of return and issue of intimation has come into effect only from 1.6.2015 and had only prospective effect and therefore, no computation of fee u/s. 234E of the Act for delayed filing of return of TDS while processing a return of TDS u/s. 234E of the Act could have been made for tax deducted at source for the assessment years prior to 1.6.2015.
All the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the interest u/s. 234E as tabulated hereinabove cannot be sustained.Appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1422 - ITAT BANGALORE
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - Unexplained cash u/s 68 - As per CIT-A cash deposited by the assessee was not verified properly and thus the order passed u/s. 143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue - assessee has not established that Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) deposited were out of receipts prior to demonetization and therefore an adverse inference was drawn that the receipts/SBNs were received after demonetization which is contrary to public policy - HELD THAT:- As it cannot be said that the AO did not carry out enquiry or verification which ought to have been done. The adverse inference drawn by the PCIT from the documents are debatable as the PCIT has out brought any material on record to substantiate his adverse inference.
In the instant case, the AO has verified the details and applied his mind to come to the conclusion that no addition is warranted towards the cash deposited by the assessee during the demonetization period. On the other hand, the PCIT has arrived at a view that the cash was deposited out of SBN received post demonetization and proper enquiries ought to have been made by the AO which is clearly a difference of opinion which cannot be a reason for revision u/s. 263.
As decided in Gabriel India Ltd [1993 (4) TMI 55 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Commissioner before holding an order to be erroneous should have conducted necessary enquiries or verification in order to show that the findings of the AO is erroneous and unsustainable in law. In the present case, the PCIT has not done so and simply expressed a view based on his inference that the AO should have conducted enquiry. Such course of action by the PCIT is not in accordance with the mandate of law - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1421 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL JAIPUR
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - HELD THAT:- Notices were issued in the aforesaid Application. The Corporate Debtor filed its reply vide Diary No. 437/2022 dated 16.02.2022, acknowledging the debt. It is stated that it is not wilfully defaulting the payment and intend to repay the said amount, and the same is evident from its commitment to making payment by confirming the outstanding dues via its Ledger Account (01.04.2021 to 10.11.2021) forwarded by the Operational Creditor. Given the global pandemic, the growth of the business has been hampered a lot, and it is passing through a significant financial crisis. It also stated that it does not want to shy away from its obligation and will pay the entire amount; however, it requires an extension of time.
It has been shown that the Corporate Debtor has failed to make payment of the aforesaid amount due till date as mentioned in statutory notice. It is also observed that the condition under Section 9 of the Code stands satisfied. Hence, this Adjudicating Authority is inclined to commence CIRP against the Corporate Debtor as envisaged under IBC, 2016.
Application admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1420 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Recovery of Customs Duty with Interest on the basis of Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 - demand made without being preceded by an adjudication of the duty payable - hospital equipments released earlier to the petitioner, consequent to the order of adjudication dated 9-1-2001 only imposing redemption fine and penalty - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Apex Court in FORTIS HOSPITAL LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, IMPORT [2015 (4) TMI 348 - SUPREME COURT] where the Hon’ble Apex Court has held had once the show cause notice has been issued under Section 124 proposing only confiscation of imported machinery and imposition of penalty and nothing was stated about payment of duty but there was no determination of the amount of duty payable in the adjudication order, the duty cannot be demanded separately.
This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records and proceedings in the Petitioner’s case - Petition disposed off.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1419 - ITAT RAIPUR
Disallowance towards late payment of employees contribution to provident fund and ESI - Contribution made admittedly after the due date as prescribed under the relevant statute but before the due date of filing of the return - HELD THAT:- Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Pashupati Ispat Pvt. Ltd. [2022 (4) TMI 1541 - ITAT CUTTACK] after discussing in detail and following the plethora of case laws, has held that it is not disputed that the payment of employees contribution to PF and ESI was made before filing of the return u/s.139(1) of the Act and accordingly deleted the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of delay in depositing the employees contribution to PF & ESI.
We are of the opinion that the payments of the employees contribution to PF & ESI having been made before the due date of filing of the return though admittedly after the due date as prescribed under the relevant statute, the same is liable to be allowed.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1418 - ITAT BANGALORE
Non-deduction of TDS - Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) - reimbursement of salary expenses made on behalf of the seconded employees as fee for technical services - HELD THAT:- We note that the evidences filed by assessee has not been considered by the revenue authorities.
We therefore remand this issue to the AO to consider the claim in accordance with the decision of M/s. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. [2022 (6) TMI 1251 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and M/s. Toyota Boshoku Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. [2022 (4) TMI 1443 - ITAT BANGALORE] and Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd. [2022 (4) TMI 1444 - ITAT BANGALORE] having regard to the evidences filed by the assessee. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee in accordance with law. Ground raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
........
|
