|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1666 Records
-
2017 (10) TMI 1671
Bogus purchases - Estimation of income - assessee submitted that CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition without providing copy of affidavits / statement of suppliers and also without affording an opportunity of cross examination of such suppliers - HELD THAT:- It is very difficult to accept that the purchases from those parties are explained to the satisfaction of the AO. Under these facts and circumstances what needs to be taxed is only the profit element in such purchases but not the total purchases made from alleged bogus parties.
This view has been further supported by the decision of Vijay Protiens Ltd. [1996 (1) TMI 144 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C] wherein it was held that only profit element embedded in bogus purchases needs to be taxed.
As in the case of Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd. [2013 (10) TMI 933 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] observed that whether purchases themselves were to be taxed or whether parties from whom such purchases made were bogus is essentially a question of fact and the Tribunal having examined the evidence on record concluded that the assessee did purchase cloth and sold goods, the entire purchase would not be subjected to tax.
In yet another case in the case of Simit P Sheth [2013 (10) TMI 1028 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has held that no uniform yardstick can be applied for estimation of net profit which is dependent upon facts and circumstances of each case. The co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai in several cases has taken a view that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases needs to be taxed. Accordingly, estimated net profit of 12.5% on bogus purchases.
We are of the view that only profit element embedded in purchases needs to be taxed. Hence, we direct the AO to estimate net profit of 12.5% on total purchases made from the above parties. Appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1670
Reassessment order passed u/s 148 by the non-jurisdictional officer - Assessment made by ACIT Circle 34(1), was without jurisdiction - matter was transferred to the said ACIT by the Income Tax Officer (‘ITO’) Ward 34 (4) without an appropriate order u/s 127 - HELD THAT:- ITAT has in the impugned order specifically adverted to the above aspect and correctly held that “The ACIT, Circle 34(1), New Delhi has admittedly not recorded that he had reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax of the Assessee has escaped assessment. He continued reassessment proceedings initiated by the ITO, Ward 34(4) of the Act without independently recording reasons for reopening or issuing a fresh notice u/s 148 of the Act.”
ITAT noted that “There is no order u/s 127 of the Act transferring the jurisdiction of the case from ITO, Ward 34(4) to ACIT, Ward 34(1). Thus this order of reassessment passed by the ACIT u/s 34(1) of the Act is without jurisdiction and hence is bad in law.
In the present memorandum of appeal no attempt has been made by the Revenue to aver whether in fact there was an order u/s 127 of the Act transferring the case to the ACIT, Circle 34(1). That being the position, the impugned order of the ITAT cannot be faulted. Decided against revenue.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1669
Offence under FEMA - Preferential allotment of shares - significant rise in the price of the company's scrip - SEBI restrained the 129 entities including Mishka and its Promoters and Directors from accessing the securities market and further prohibited them from buying, selling or dealing in securities, either directly or indirectly
HELD THAT:- No adverse findings against the 104 entities mentioned at S. No. 1-104 in Table No. 2 with respect to their role in the price manipulation /prima facie violations for which Interim Order dated April 17, 2015 was passed and subsequently confirmed in the scrip of Mishka warranting continuation of action under Sections 11B and 11(4) of the SEBI Act, the directions issued against them vide interim order which were confirmed Orders later are liable to be revoked.
With regard to 9 entities at S. No. 105 to 113 in in Table No. 2, no adverse material was found in the Investigation Report with respect to prima facie violations found against them in Interim Order dated April 17, 2015 (which was subsequently confirmed) but the Investigation Report has brought out violation relating to disclosure under SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 and SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares And Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 warranting Adjudication Proceedings. Therefore directions issued against them vide interim order which were subsequently confirmed are also liable to be revoked.
The revocation of the directions issued vide this order is only in respect of the entities mentioned at paragraph 7 of this order in the matter of Mishka pertaining to the period from February 14, 2013 to December 31, 2014 in respect of the prima facie violations for which the Confirmatory Order were passed by SEBI. As regards remaining 13 entities in the scrip of Mishka, violations under SEBI Act and/or SCRA and/or PFUTP Regulations and other securities laws were observed and SEBI shall continue its proceedings against them. Hence, the directions issued vide Order dated April 17, 2015 against remaining 13 entities shall continue.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1668
Benefit of Cenvat credit given solely on the basis of photocopies of the documents - it was held by High Court that 'We do not see that any question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises for decision in this appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.'
HELD THAT:- In the facts of the case it is required to interfere. Questions of law arising, however, are kept open for decision in an appropriate case.
SLP disposed off.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1667
Disqualification of directors due to default in filing annual returns - rectification of the defect - HELD THAT:- Rule 14 of the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014, prima facie provides for rectifying the defect by enabling the defaulting companies to file their returns. However, the said Rule does not provide what is required to be done by the respective authorities. In the light of the fact that a defaulting company is allowed to rectify the defect by filing the returns which have not been filed earlier, the natural corollary of the same would be that the designated/competent authority is required to take the same into consideration. As the filing has to be done through e-platform, the same cannot be done unless access is provided to. The authorized individual/Director has to file the same, which obviously requires providing access by the authorities.
As a matter of fact, the material placed before this Court, particularly, the report of the Companies Law Committee, dated nil.02.2016, submitted to the Hon'ble Union Minister of Finance, Corporate Affairs and I & B, discloses that the anomaly in relation to the same, particularly, with regard to the disqualification that is earned by an individual not only with respect to the defaulting company, but also with respect to the other companies, is noticed and the prima facie opinion of the Committee is that a rectification is required to be made restricting the scope of disqualification to the defaulting company.
There shall be a direction to respondent No.1 to restore DIN Numbers 00057433 and 00129701 of petitioners 2 and 3 insofar as petitioner No.1-Company, so as to enable them to submit annual returns of petitioner No.1 Company for the years 2011-12 to 2015-16 and further financial statements for the years 2012-13 to 2015-16 in compliance with Rule 14 of the afore-stated Rules read with Form DIR-8, Form DIR-9 and Form DIR-10.
Conclusion - The respondent No. 1 is directed to restore the DIN Numbers 00057433 and 00129701 for petitioners 2 and 3 concerning petitioner No. 1-Company.
Application disposed off.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1666
Claim of expenses against the salary income and the other incomes earned under the provisions of Section 28(v) - AO had allowed 25% of the expenses relating to the car representing the car loan interest, depreciation, petrol expenses and vehicle repair expenses and disallowed the balance of 75% along with all other expenses claimed - AO had disallowed the same by holding that the expenditure claimed by the assessee is on account of earning of income from different entity, whose accounts are already audited and that the assessee had failed to establish the genuineness by producing the evidence in the form of bills and vouchers except a few vouchers on vehicle repairs - HELD THAT:- The provisions of Sec 28(v) was reads “any interest, salary, bonus, commission or remuneration, by whatever name called, due to, or received by, a partner of a firm from such firm shall be chargeable to income tax under the head profit and gains business or profession”. Once the said income is chargeable to income tax under the head profits and gains business or profession then the assessee is entitled to claim any expenses which he has incurred for the purpose of earning such income.
AO has taken a stand that the expenses were not for the purpose of earning income. AO has held certain expenses in respect of Ladies Club to be personal in nature.
In the course of the assessment, the assessee himself has volunteered for disallowance of 25% of the expenses to be disallowed.
Considering the fact that the assessee is a Chartered Accountant and professional, the requirement of his having to entertain clients at clubs and travel for his business requirements. We are of the view that it cannot be held that all the club expenses are personal in nature. The bank charges admittedly are for the purpose of assessee’s business. The assessee would have to attend various meetings consequently boarding and lodging.
To keep upto-date books and periodicals have to be purchased and expenses incurred. So also telephone charges, travelling expenses and other subscriptions, keeping an employee to look after his works would also incur salary expenses. A perusal of the income expenditure account of the assessee clearly shows that the assessee has not claimed any specific personal expenses in the said income expenditure account and the expenses are clearly allowable expenses while computing the income under the head profits and gains business or profession.
Assessee has agreed to a disallowance of 25% before the AO, as also considering the fact that the AO has allowed 25% of the vehicle expenses as allowable expenses, the AO is directed to restrict the disallowance to 25% of the expenses as claimed by the assessee, in the interest of natural justice, the balance 75% of the expenses are directed to be allowed. Appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1665
Cancellation of exemption granted in favour u/s 12AA - activities of the Board could not be termed to be charitable in nature - According to the Revenue, the assessee was performing functions which were regulatory in nature; not engaged in the advancement of objects of general public utility; not performing its duties, in accordance with the objects for which it was established - HELD THAT:- One finds the Tribunal to have taken a view contrary to the view taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax. What weighed with the Tribunal was the definition of charitable purpose stipulated u/s 2(15) of the Act.
Significantly we find the factual matrix not to have been considered or discussed by the Tribunal/authorities below. Perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority demonstrates that there is no reasoning assigned as to on what basis it arrived at the conclusions mentioned in the order.
Remand the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax for taking a fresh decision, after considering rival contentions of the parties.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1664
Rejection of appeal filed by the petitioner-assessee as barred by limitation of 184 days - condonation of dealy in filing appeal - sufficient cause for delay or not - HELD THAT:- In view of the restriction on the respondent authority by a statutory provision, even the genuine cases for condonation of delay cannot be considered and that is why such delays in filing the appeal have been condoned by this Court in some cases - reliance placed in Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Union of India [2017 (1) TMI 872 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'this Court is of the opinion that the reasons assigned by the petitioner-assessee appear to be of sufficient and the delay deserved to be condoned by the Commissioner of Appeals. However, in view of the statutory limit on his powers, this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction is of the opinion that the said delay deserves to be condoned.'
Since the present case is also of the same nature, the present petition is also disposed of in same terms and condoning the delay, the appeal is restored to the said respondent-Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mysore, for deciding the appeal on merits, in accordance with law. The petitioner-assessee will however have to comply with the other conditions for maintaining such appeal and this order will cover only the limitation aspect only.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1663
Rejection of insurance claim - Delay in informing insurance company about theft - HELD THAT:- If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. It is also necessary to state here that it would not be fair and reasonable to reject genuine claims which had already been verified and found to be correct by the Investigator. The condition regarding the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine. It needs no emphasis that the Consumer Protection Act aims at providing better protection of the interest of consumers. It is a beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction. This laudable object should not be forgotten while considering the claims made under the Act.
In the instant case, the Appellant has given cogent reasons for the delay of 8 days in informing the Respondent about the incident. The Investigator had verified the theft to be genuine and the payment of Rs. 7,85,000/- towards the claim was approved by the Corporate Claims Manager, which, in our opinion, is just and proper. The National Commission, therefore, is not justified in rejecting the claim of the Appellant without considering the explanation for the delay. Also, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation.
The orders of the National Commission, State Commission and the District Forum are set aside and the claim petition filed by the Appellant is allowed - Appeal allowed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1662
Classification of imported goods - NCM filling valves - to be classified under CTH 8422 90 90 or under CTH 8481 80 90? - HELD THAT:- It does not appeal to common sense to appreciate how the goods imported was not connected to the machinery manufactured by the appellant.
When Revenue had no finding that appellant was a trader of the imported goods without that being used in the manufacture of goods falling under CTH 8422 30 00, there cannot be denial of classification of the goods under CTH 8422 90 90.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1661
Validity of assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) - as argued case was selected for scrutiny in CASS nor the scrutiny guidelines issued by the CBDT Circular - HELD THAT:- AR could not prove that there is lack of jurisdiction of the AO or does not have approval of CIT for selection of scrutiny except making the submissions with supporting guidelines. On the query from the bench why the case of the assessee does not fall under clause (g) as discussed above. The explanations of ld. AR are not convincing to us and accordingly, we are not inclined to accept the reasons explained by the ld. AR on guidelines and we dismiss this ground of appeal of the assessee.
Advance for construction of school building - AR could not satisfy with any evidence that the construction has taken place and it was submitted that due to various reasons the construction could not be taken up and filed confirmation to the extent that the company which has received advances from the assessee.
We find the assessee could not substantiate before the lower authorities even before us that the construction of the building was with any statutory approval and there is ambiguity in the transaction and we are not in a position to understand why the advance amount was lying with the company even though the transaction has failed and the ld. AR’s explanation that the amount has been refunded in the subsequent year is without evidence and fail to strength the case. We are not convinced with the explanation on commercial expediency and accordingly we uphold the action of CIT(A) on this ground and dismiss the grounds of appeal of assessee.
Enhanced the assessment towards interest on advance without giving show cause notice or reasonable opportunity to the assessee - AR submitted that the CIT(A) has called for the various information and assessee has cooperated in submitting the same but the CIT(A) has estimated the enhanced income without issuing show cause notice we are of the substantial opinion that there is a gross violation of principle of natural justice as the information collected by the CIT(A) is used against the assessee, without providing reasonable opportunity to defend its case - we set aside the enhancement of income by the CIT(A) in his order and partly allow the grounds of appeal of assessee.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1660
Challenge to Assessment under TNVAT Act 2006 - Best judgment assessment - Penalty under Section 22(5) of TNVAT Act 2006 - HELD THAT:- When the order was challenged, in TVL. GURUSAMY AGENCIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR VERSUS DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PANRUTI (TOWN) [2017 (6) TMI 1404 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate forum, writ Court vide order dated 07.06.2017, disposed of the writ petition, granting three weeks time, from the date of passing of the order in the writ petition.
The Writ appeal is dismissed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1659
Dishonour of Cheque - Vicarious liability of directors under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Petitioners argues that the requisite averments to implicate the petitioners vicariously is not disclosed in the petition of complaint - HELD THAT:- In [2005 (9) TMI 304 - SUPREME COURT], a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that in order to invoke the vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against a Director of a company, it must be averred in the petition of complaint that the accused director was 'in-charge of and responsible to the accused-company for the running of its day-to-day business at the time of commission of the offence'.
A whole-time director of a company is to be treated as a 'key managerial personnel' of the company and may be held to be an 'officer in default', where under the provisions of the Companies Act, an officer is liable for the payment of time or penalty for breaches committed by the company. Vicarious liability in respect of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act however is to be determined in terms of the deeming provision engrafted in Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The deeming clauses, inter alia, fixes vicarious liability on such officers of the company who were in-charge of and responsible to the company for the running of its day-to-day business at the time of commission of offence. Merely because a person was a whole time, director of the company, no statutory presumption cannot be made under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that he is incharge of the affairs of the company.
The contentions of the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 cannot be accepted that merely because the petitioners were directors/additional directors of the company it has to be inferred that they were in-charge of the affairs of the company. It is also pertinent to note that specific overt ai ts of the petitioners have also not been articulated in the petition of complaint so as to establish the extent of their involvement in the affairs of the said company.
Thus, continuation of the proceeding against the petitioners is in abuse, of the process of law and hence the impugned proceeding so far as the petitioners are concerned is quashed. Proceeding against other accused persons shall be proceeded with due expedition and be concluded at an early date preferably within six months from date of communication of this order without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. It is clarified in the event cogent and reliable evidence is adduced by the complainant disclosing ingredients of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioners, it shall be open to the trial court to invoke Section 319 Cr.P.C. to bring the company back in the array of the accused directors in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1658
Seeking amendment of the Import General Manifest (IGM) - petitioner is an alternate buyer - HELD THAT:- The Division Bench in M/S. AGROCORP INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [2016 (12) TMI 1312 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] while dealing with the similar issue had an occasion to deal with subsection (3) of section 30 of the Customs Act,1962. In paragraph 8 of the Judgment, the Division Bench observed that the Authorities cannot refuse to consider the application for modification of the IGM only because there was an allegation of a wrongful act or there was protest raised. The Division Bench held that the Customs Officer cannot go into this arena as these issues can be resolved only by a Civil Court. Therefore, a direction was issued to the Authority to consider the application for amendment subject to certain conditions.
The concerned Authority empowered is directed to consider the application made by the petitioner for amendment in IGM to decide the application made by the petitioner for amendment or substitution to the IGM subject to condition of the petitioner executing indemnity bond in favour of the Authorities indemnifying them of the claims and protests raised by the private parties regarding subject goods - the present petition also deserves to be disposed of.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1657
CENVAT credit - input - welding electrodes used for repairs and maintenance of plant and machinery - the substantial question of law is answered in affirmative i.e. in favor of respondent-Revenue and against appellant-assessee by the High Court - HELD THAT:- Leave granted.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1656
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - expenses incurred for earning exempt income in relation to investments made in equity instruments of the subsidiary company - absence of any satisfaction recorded by the AO vis-à-vis the incorrectness of the claim of the assessee that no expenditure had been incurred vis-à-vis the impugned investment - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee had duly demonstrated the fact that the investments made in various years was not out of borrowed funds and having demonstrated the availability of enough own funds the assessee had also duly demonstrated that there were sufficient own interest free funds for making the impugned investments.
Therefore, there was no reason for making any disallowance of interest. The reliance placed by the Ld. counsel for the assessee on the decision of Max India Ltd. [2017 (3) TMI 1254 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] is apt wherein it has been held that if an assessee establishes that its interest free funds were equal to or more than the interest bearing funds it would be open to it to contend that presumption arises that the expenditure for earning interest income was incurred from out of its interest free funds.
Thus we hold that in any case no disallowance of interest expenditure u/s. 14A was liable in the present case and the same needs to be deleted.
Entire investments were strategic investments and the sole objective of the investment was not to earn dividend or capital gain on sale of such share but to provide trading platform to the general public -Undoubtedly and undisputedly, the investment made in share of LSE Securities Ltd. was for the purpose of facilitating and providing a trading platform to the general public by creating a subsidiary company. Having said so, the commercial expediency of making the impugned investment stands established and the interest expenditure incurred thereon cannot therefore be held to be for any non business purpose so as to warrant disallowance of the same u/s. 14A of the Act.
Reliance placed by assessee on the decision of Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. [2013 (1) TMI 720 - DELHI HIGH COURT] is apt wherein it has been categorically held that the investment being attributable to commercial expedience, expenses incurred in relation to the same cannot be termed to have been incurred for earning exempt income. We, therefore, hold that since the investments were strategic investments no disallowance could be made u/s. 14A of the Act.
We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and direct that the disallowance made u/s. 14A be deleted. Ground of appeal No. 1 raised by the assessee allowed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1655
Violation of principles of natural justice - no reason for passing the impugned order - reply of the petitioner given to the show cause notice not considered - Extension of contract period and subsequent termination - blacklisting in the agreement executed between the petitioner and the opposite party - HELD THAT:- It is clear that the impugned order has been passed without assigning any reason and also without considering the reply of the petitioner given to the show cause notice.
Blacklisting - HELD THAT:- It is admitted by the opposite party that there was no provision of blacklisting, either in the tender call notice, or in the agreement. However, the apex Court in the case of M/s. Kulja Industries Limited [2013 (10) TMI 733 - SUPREME COURT] has in paragraph 17 held that there was no need for any such power being specifically conferred by statute or reserved by contractor because blacklisting simply signifies a business decision by which the party affected by the breach decides not to enter into any contractual relationship with the party committing the breach.
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1978 (1) TMI 161 - SUPREME COURT] the apex Court observed that the reasons, if disclosed, being open to judicial scrutiny for ascertaining their nexus with the order, the refusal to disclose the reasons would equally be open to the scrutiny of the court; or else, the wholesome power of a dispassionate judicial examination of executive orders could, with impunity, be set at naught by an obdurate determination to suppress the reasons.
As the opposite party had extended the period of the agreement, without there being any request so made by the petitioner and without expressing its discontent or dissatisfaction with regard to the working of the petitioner, it is opined that after the period of contract had expired, the passing of the impugned order, in the manner as has been done in the present case, cannot be justified.
Petition allowed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1654
Conviction u/s 252 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - conviction not recorded in accordance with law - violation of Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT:- Reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant upon the judgment of this Court in the case of KAUSHALYA DAS VERSUS STATE OF MADRAS [1965 (5) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT], wherein this Court reproduced the observations of the learned Magistrate, where it was held that 'Section 362(2)(A) of the Criminal Procedure Code has no application in a case where the accused pleads guilty and the special provision of s. 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code would be attracted in such a case. Section 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code is a provision of a special character and according to well-established rule of interpretation that special provision will take precedence and override the general provision of s. 362(2)(A) of the Criminal Procedure Code.'
The conviction of the Appellant is not sustainable - the conviction of the Appellant is set aside - appeal disposed off.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1653
Benami transaction proceeding initiated by the Initiating Officer (IO) - validity of proceeding under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 - retrospectivity or prospectivity of the penal provisions in the 2016 Amendment Act - jurisdictional violation of exercise of powers under the 1988 Act (as amended) - Company denied that the provisions of the 1988 Act are at all applicable to the facts of the present case and if at all, the IO has jurisdiction only to inquire under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act - HELD THAT:- This Court must notice the relevance of Sections 2(9)(B) and (D) of the 1988 Act (as amended) which, inter alia, collectively define a benami transaction as an arrangement in respect of a property carried out in a fictitious name where the person providing the consideration is not traceable.
This Court, on the basis of materials placed, is satisfied that the IO has applied his mind to the facts painstakingly collected and the issue now requires solid factual adjudication at the level of the AA. This Court is also satisfied that the preliminary legal objection taken by Mr. Kar is not persuasive for a Writ court to interdict a proceeding under the 1988 Act qua a private limited company where the dominant shareholders are de facto the Company itself and it has become necessary to identify the structure and role of the entities in respect of a transaction which requires exploration at the appropriate factual level on its alleged benami colour.
Distance claimed by Mr. Kar of the shareholders from any interest in the immovable property of the Company on the strength of the decision reported in [1954 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] (supra) would depend on the ground situation influencing the pecuniary proximity in a given case which, require to be exhaustively examined at the level of the AA.
This Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that the attachment declared by the IO is provisional and the petitioners should not shy away from an adjudication by the AA if they are sure that factually the Company stands on firm ground.
Point raised by petitioner against retrospectivity of the penal provisions in the 2016 Amendment Act is answered with the observation that the 1988 Act, as amended in 2016, imbibes the colour of a statute in restraint of acts constituting benami transactions. The Act does not seek to create any vested/substantive rights, only indirectly protecting transactions which fall within the exceptions of a benami transaction, viz. Section 9(A)(i) to (iv).
Section 1(3) of the 1988 Act itself provides for prospectivity of its operative portions, viz. its penal clauses, in contra distinction to its definition/defining provisions. Furthermore, this Court has no reason to accede to Prayer (a) of the Writ Petition upon noticing that the steps contemplated under Section 24 (supra) follow the notice of the IO and, being procedural apply in seriatim to the notice for the purpose of identifying a benami transaction prohibited in the statute book w.e.f 19 May, 1988.
The orders impugned of the IO are thus not interfered with. Accordingly, no jurisdictional violation of exercise of powers under the 1988 Act (as amended) is found by this Court.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1652
Addition u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D - Mandation of recording satisfaction - HELD THAT:- We find that the issue involved in these appeals is squarely covered by the order of coordinate Bench in the case of assessee itself [2017 (6) TMI 495 - ITAT DELHI] held as AO did not record satisfaction after verification of the books of account about the correctness of the claim of disallowance made by the assessee before invoking provisions of Rule 8D as provided u/s 14A(2) of the Act. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Taikisha Engineering Pvt. Ltd [2014 (12) TMI 482 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we reverse the finding of the ld CIT(A), and direct the AO to delete the disallowance.
Thus following the above decision of coordinate Bench, the issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The decisions relied by the ld. DR, being distinguishable on facts, render no help to the Revenue in the instant case.
MAT - Addition of the disallowance to the book profit of assessee for the purpose of computation of MAT liability - As we find no justification to discard the findings reached by the ld. CIT(A) reached on the basis of interpretation of section 115JB. We also support the deletion of this addition laying our hands on the decision of Vireet Investment (P) Ltd [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI]
Assessee appeal allowed.
........
|
9911796707
