|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1976 Records
-
2018 (4) TMI 1880 - ITAT CHENNAI
Disallowance U/s.14A r.w.r.8D - HELD THAT:- Section 14A of the Act only specifies that no deduction shall be allowable in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. It does not specify with respect to expenditure incurred on taxable income. Therefore in the case where assessee incurs revenue expenditure towards Investments, the income from which is taxable, the provisions of Section 14A of the Acted does not apply. Hence the Investments made by the assessee, wherein the income derived is taxable provisions of Section 14A of the Act are not applicable.
The decision rendered by the Delhi Benches of the Tribunal in the case ACIT & ANR v/s. Vireet Investment PVT.LTD. & ANR [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] also fortify our view wherein it was held that “As per Rule 8D(2)(iii), only those investments were to be considered for computing average value of investment which yielded exempt income during year under consideration.” Accordingly we hereby direct the Ld.AO to compute the disallowance U/s.14A r.w.r., 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules only on the investment which yield exempt income.
Disallowance of interest expenditure u/s.36(1)(iii) - HELD THAT:- When the assessee has own interest free funds such as share capital and reserves & surplus, it should be presumed that the interest free loan was extended from such funds. The decision relied by the Ld.AR is applicable to the facts of the case present before us. The decisions relied by the Ld.DR are not identical to the facts of the case because all those cases was related to diversion of interest bearing funds. Therefore following the ratio of the decision relied by the Ld.AR, we hereby direct the Ld.AO to delete the addition made by the Ld.AO by holding that the assessee had advanced interest free loan from non-interest bearing funds.Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1879 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
TDS u/s 195 - PE in India - commission paid to non-resident agents towards machines sold in India applying provisions of sec. 9(1)(i) - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case for the assessment year 2009- 10 once we come to the conclusion that the income embedded in these payments did not have any tax implications in India, no fault can be found in not deducting tax at source from these payments or, for that purpose, even not approaching the Assessing Officer for order under section 195. In our considered view, the assessee, for the detailed reasons set our above, did not have tax withholding liability from these payments. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt Ltd [2010 (9) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] payer is bound to withhold tax from the foreign remittance only if the sum paid is assessable to tax in India. The assessee cannot, therefore, be faulted for not approaching the Assessing Officer under section 195 either. As regards the withdrawal of the CBDT circular holding that the commission payments to non resident agents are not taxable in India, nothing really turns on the circular, as de hors the aforesaid circular, we have adjudicated upon the taxability of the commission agent’s income in India in terms of the provisions of the Income Tax Act as also the relevant tax treaty provisions.
Unaccounted income - no disclosure of sale of machines - assessee has responded that these machines were in transit for shipment as on 31st March, 2011 and machines were actually shipped in next year with bill of lading date ranging from 5th April, 2011 to 9th April, 2011 therefore, these machines were treated as part of closing stock - HELD THAT:- As decided in the case of assessee itself for the assessment year 2004-05 to A.Y.2010-11 Section 26 of the Act provides that unless otherwise agreed, the goods remain at the seller risk. In case of FOB contracts the goods are delivered free on board the ship once the seller has placed the goods safely on board at his cost and thereby handed over the possession of the goods to the ship in transfer of the Bill of Landing or other document, the responsibility of the seller ceases on the delivery of the goods to the buyer is complete. After considering the above facts and legal findings we considered that sale was executed under FOB as per which the risk was transferred from the seller to the buyer when the goods put on ship or rail. In view of above, we are not inclined with the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) and we are of the view that when the sale was executed under FOB, CIF terms as per which the risk was transferred from the seller to the buyer when the goods put on ship or rail. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on this issue
Disallowance of depreciation - as per AO claim of depreciation on non-compete fees is not justified because the payment of non-compete fees did not merely facilitate conduct of business as it would be a capital expenditure by merely because of capital expenditure it would not be necessary that it is eligible for depreciation - HELD THAT:- Non-compete fee paid by the assessee to Mr. Patel is a capital expenditure and the assessee has acquired an intangible right which is depreciable and depreciation claimed is allowable under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the decision of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1878 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - evidentiary value of additional documents produced - HELD THAT:- The Appellate Court is having ample power for receiving the additional evidence subject to the condition that the Court should came to the conclusion that the additional evidence is necessary. With regard to the additional documents now submitted by the respondent, the learned Additional District Judge hold that the particulars of those documents are already mentioned in the reply notice sent by the respondent. Moreover, it was mentioned in the order, as the documents which are enclosed in the petitions are all relates to the year of 1997-1999. Further, it was identified by the learned Additional District Judge that the 11th document enclosed in the petition is a document certified by the competent court after seeing the original.
Now, on going through the defense taken by the respondent in the Criminal Appeal is the alleged cheque pertaining to the Criminal Appeal is not handed over to the petitioner by the respondent directly. The said cheque goes to the hands of the petitioner only through one V.Madeswaran. The said defense was already mentioned in the reply notice sent to the revision petitioner - the particulars available with the additional documents are related with the defense taken by the respondent whereby taking the view of the learned Additional District Judge that those documents are necessary for disposing the Criminal Appeal does not warrant any interference.
This Court came to the conclusion that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nammakal is only within the legal frame work - Criminal Revisions are dismissed.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1877 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH
Approval of scheme of amalgamation - Sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- From the material on record, the Scheme appears to be fair, reasonable and is not contrary to public interest - Since all the requisite statutory compliances have been fulfilled, the Company Scheme Petition is made absolute in terms of prayer as provided therein and fixed Appointed date as 1st April, 2017.
The scheme is approved - application allowed.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1876 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Stay of the proceedings disabling the DIN numbers - Direction to 1st respondent to reactivate Or restore the DIN numbers of the petitioners herein - HELD THAT:- In the considered view of this Court, restoration of the DIN numbers of the Directors concerned is necessary not only for submission of annual returns and financial statements of the subject company, but also for discharging their functions as Director in the other Companies and, therefore, restoration of the DIN numbers of the Directors concerned is essential. Moreover, the petitioners also intend to follow the procedure before they take appropriate steps for closure of their company of which they are the Directors by following the procedure established by law as such a course, according to them, would meet the ends of justice.
There shall be stay of the proceedings disabling the DIN of the present petitioners. There shall be a further direction to the 1st respondent to restore the DIN numbers of the petitioners pending disposal of this writ petition, so as to enable them to submit annual returns and financial statements of the subject Company of which they are the Directors and avail the benefits of COD Scheme - Post after four weeks in Adjourned Motion List, for counter and hearing.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1875 - SUPREME COURT
Exemption u/s 11 - Contravention of Section 13(1)(d) - Dividend income - Tax at margin rate u/s 164 - trust received gift of TISCO Ltd. shares which were subsequently written off - Whether tax at margin rate u/s 164(2) is to be levied on the income earned from non-exempt asset - whether holding of ineligible assets is sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 13(1)(d)(iii)? - HELD THAT:- Delay condoned. Leave granted.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1874 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Stay of demand - petitioner to pay 20% of the disputed tax - HELD THAT:- Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as before the ITAT, the petitioner has succeeded for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2012-13, and it is the Revenue, which is on Appeal. Therefore, balance of convenience is entirely in favour of the assessee/petitioner, which is also the Government of India undertaking sponsored by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. Thus, the impugned order, directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the disputed tax is not sustainable in law.
For the above reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside. There will be an order of stay of collection of the tax pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16 till the disposal of the Appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that before the matter could be taken up, the third respondent has already taken a demand draft from the petitioner's bankers for a sum.
The petitioner is granted liberty to submit a representation to the respondents 2 and 3 for repatriation of the said amount of ₹ 36,00,000/- to the bank account of the petitioner. If such representation is made, the respondents 2 and 3 shall consider the same, bearing in mind the observation made by the second respondent, in the earlier order, dated 31.10.2017 as well as the observation made in the order, dated 01.12.2017, while granting stay of the entire demand. Such decision should be taken within a period of two weeks from the date on which the representation is made.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1873 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Reassessment of order - period of limitation for reassessment - VAT liabilities against the petitioner for FY 2011-2012 - subsection [1] of Section 35 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - HELD THAT:- In any case, when the audit assessment was carried out, Section 34 [8A] could not have been resorted to. There are number of other infirmities in the assessment order also.
Notice to the respondents, returnable on 22nd June 2018. Impugned order is stayed.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1872 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Ex-parte order - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that in the facts of the present case, the assessee remained unrepresented for no fault of its own. Accepting the explanation offered by the assessee for remaining unrepresented on the date of hearing as bonafide and true, the impugned order is recalled exercising the powers vested by proviso to Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules 1963, the impugned ex-parte order is recalled. Support is drawn from the decision in the case of CIT Vs Ansal Housing Construction Ltd. [2004 (5) TMI 22 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
Accordingly, the appeals are restored back to original position and the Registry is directed to fix the appeals on 05.06.2018 for which date no notice of hearing is to be issued to the parties as the date was announced on the date of hearing itself.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1871 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Depreciation on photo-copy machines - @ 15% or 60% - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee has separately shown photo-copiers and has claimed depreciation @ 15% only. This can be seen from the schedule of fixed assets and depreciation exhibited.
The impugned assets on which the dispute arose are multifaceted printers having dimensional functions but at the same time, the impugned assets are printers and are part and parcel of the computer system.
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd. [2010 (8) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that computer accessories and peripherals such as printers, scanners and server, etc., form an integral part of computer system and, hence, they are entitled to depreciation at higher rate of 60%. Thus we direct the A.O. to allow depreciation @ 60%. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1870 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Addition u/s 40A(2)(b) - interest paid to directors in excess of interest paid to other parties - AO noticed that the assessee inter alia paid interest to directors of the company at higher rate of 18% p.a. whereas the assessee has also paid interest on borrowed funds at lower rate of 11% - 13% to other parties - as per AO nearly 5% has been paid to the directors in excess of fair market value of lending rate and consequently quantified the disallowance of excess interest with the aid of section 40A(2)(b) - CIT-A confirmed case of the assessee for non-applicability of section 40A(2)(b) - HELD THAT:- We find substance at the first instance on the plea paddled on behalf of the assessee that interest rate @ 18% cannot be seen as excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fact that the assessee has incurred interest costs at the similar rate on borrowed funds from uncontrolled parties. This fact itself proves the case of the assessee in affirmative. The revenue has not been able to counter this aspect of justification for making payment of interest alleged at higher rate qua other lenders. Therefore, we do not consider it necessary to look into the other plea of the assessee on requirement of determination of market rate of interest independently. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in drawing conclusion in favour of the assessee.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1869 - ITAT DELHI
Admissibility of expenditures incurred by the assessee (a pharmaceutical company)u/s 37 - Disallowance on account of marketing expenses - AO noticed that the marketing expenses included gift to the Doctors which was in violation to the provisions of Indian Medical Council (Professional conduct Etiquettes and Ethics) Regulations 2002 issued by M.C.I. and circular No. 5/2012 dated 12.8.2012 issued by CBDT - HELD THAT:- Since the facts of the assessee’s case are similar to the facts involved in the aforesaid referred case of DCIT vs. PHL Pharma Private Limited [2017 (1) TMI 771 - ITAT MUMBAI] there is no violation by the assessee in so far as giving any kind of freebies to the medical practitioners. Thus, such kind of expenditures by a pharmaceutical companies are purely for business purpose which has to be allowed as business expenditure and is not impaired by EXPLANATION 1 to section 37(1). - Decided in favour of assessee
So respectfully following the said order, the impugned disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the learned CIT(A) is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1868 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Winding up of company - appointment of Official Liquidator - appointment is rejected on the ground that the petition for appointment of Provisional Liquidator can be entertained and an order thereon can be passed only after the admission of the Company Petition, but not along with the admission - rejection also on the ground that neither any notice was issued nor any reasons, for dispensing with such notice or for appointing the Provisional Liquidator, have been assigned - HELD THAT:- Sub-section (2) of Section 450 of the Act ordains that the Court shall not only give the Company a notice but also a reasonable opportunity to it to make its representations against the appointment of the Provisional Liquidator before such appointment is made. In our opinion, sub-section (2) of Section 450 of the Act is incorporated with the avowed object of allowing the Company to make, its representations before appointing a provisional liquidator, for, appointment of the Provisional Liquidator is drastic in nature like appointment of a receiver in respect of the property in a civil dispute. As rightly argued by the learned Senior Counsel, only for special reasons to be recorded in writing, issue of such notice can be dispensed with. Admittedly, no such reasons have been assigned for dispensing with such notice to the appellant.
The order of the learned Company Judge to the extent of appointing the Provisional Liquidator cannot be sustained and the same is, accordingly, set aside while confirming the order under Appeal to the extent of admission of the Company Petition - Appeal allowed in part.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1867 - ITAT DLEHI
TP Adjustment - most appropriate method while computing the arm’s length price of the international transactions - HELD THAT:- We are in agreement with the ld. DRP and the ld. AR to hold that in this situation segregation of accounts solely basing on the income but without reference to either gross profit or sales is most unreliable and the adoption of TNMM method at entity level is safe and plausible method. Unless and until there are compelling reasons to disturb this functional integrity of the assessee, merely because it is possible to have two segments theoretically separate, it is not safe to bifurcate the financials arbitrarily.
The contention of the assessee that the excess profits earned in commission segment have to be given set off while determining the adjustment for trading segment cannot be brushed aside. Perhaps keeping all this in view, ld. DRP found that in the backdrop of similarity of the international transactions to be bench marked and the business model of the assessee over the past few years, in the absence of any compelling reasons, the consistently applied TNMM should not have been rejected and CUP method should not have been applied to bench mark the commission income separately. We do not find any reason to disagree with the ld. DRP in view of the fact that the view taken by the ld. DRP is also one of the plausible views amongst the several options put forth before them by the assessee which are reflected in the order of the ld. DRP. We, therefore, uphold the finding of the ld. DRP and find ground No.1 devoid of merits.
Adjustment on account of working capital while working out the average margins of the comparables - HELD THAT:- As direction given by Ld. DRP to the Ld. AO/LD. TPO to give working capital adjustment while working out the average margins of the parables. It could be seen from the impugned order, Ld. DRP opined that in view of rule 10 B (3), to improve the compatibility in the facts of the case by comparing margins of the tested party with the incomparable, adjustment should be made for the working capital for which the reliable data has to be provided by the taxpayer. While directing the taxpayer to provide the necessary Data/details with computation of the working capital of the tested party and comparables, Ld. DRP directed the Ld. TPO to give the working capital adjustment. For this purpose Ld. DRP took strength from the decisions in the cases of Mentor graphics. [2007 (11) TMI 339 - ITAT DELHI-H], Sony India [2006 (10) TMI 88 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Philips software [2008 (9) TMI 466 - ITAT BANGALORE-B].
In view of the impact of the trade receivables, trade payables and inventory on the interest cost and depending upon the interest cost the margins change their volumes; we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the directions given by the Ld. DRP in respect of the working capital adjustment. We see no reason to interfere with such a direction. This ground of appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Charging the interest on then receivables from the AE’s - determination of interest on receivables outstanding with the AEs and to compute the interest forgone and outstanding and give benefit of the same and bring to tax only the net interest income - HELD THAT:- DRP drew support from safe Harbor Rules which came into force in September, 2013 stating that though they are not applicable in the year under consideration, but the principle is justifiably applicable in the case of the taxpayer for the international transaction to be benchmarked. In the circumstances Ld. DRP directed the ld. TPO to verify the amounts of receivables, stating that in case the aggregate amount of receivables from the AEs does not exceed the ₹ 50 crores, to apply SBI base rate as on 30th of June of relevant the previous year +150 basis points, and in case the aggregate amount of receivables from the AEs exceed ₹ 50 crores, apply SBI base rate as on 30th of June of relevant previous year +300 basis points.
It is not demonstrated before us as to how this direction in the given situation is bad either on facts or under law. The reasoning followed by the Ld. DRP is neither illegal nor irregular and it does not warrant any interference at our end. In the absence of any compelling reasons, we do not find it just or proper to interfere with such direction of the Ld. DRP. We therefore uphold the same and dismiss this ground of appeal.
Disallowance of travelling expenses stating it to be prior period expense - HELD THAT:- On this aspect, after having gone through the assessee submission and order of the LD. AO, as a matter of fact Ld. DRP found that the company received a contract for which it was required to render services till April, 2009, the invoicing for which was done in April, 2009 and the revenue was recognized in the FY 2009-10. It is further observed that the company incurred travelling expenses for this project from December, 2008 to April, 2009 whereas income from this project was not recognized in the books during the FY 2008-09 and the corresponding travel expenses FY 2008-09. However, subsequently in the FY 2009-10, the income from the project was recognized and the corresponding travelling expenses were charged in the books of accounts. In the instant case, the expenditure in regard to travelling expenses has accrued and arisen during the year and accordingly the same is allowable as direction while computing the profits for the FY 2009-10. The assessing officer is, therefore, directed to delete the addition. We find no reason to interfere with the same. We, therefore, uphold the same and dismiss the ground No. 4 of revenue’s appeal.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1866 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash deposits - HELD THAT:- A credit in the 'bank account' of an assessee cannot be construed as a credit in the ‘books’ of the assessee, for the very reason that the bank account cannot be held to be the 'books' of the assessee. Though, it remains as a matter of fact that the 'bank account' of an assessee is the account of the assessee with the bank, or in other words the account of the assessee in the books of the bank, but the same in no way can be held to be the ‘books’ of the assessee. A thoughtful consideration to the scope and gamut of the aforesaid statutory provision, viz. Sec. 68, and are of the considered view that an addition made in respect of a cash deposit in the 'bank account' of an assessee, in the absence of the same found credited in the 'books’ of the assessee maintained for the previous year, cannot be brought to tax by invoking the provisions of Section 68.
As stands gathered from the records, the addition made by the A.O is in respect of the cash deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee, and not in any ‘books’ of the assessee for the year under consideration. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, the addition made by the A.O in respect of the cash deposits of ₹ 8,51,400/- in the bank accounts of the assessee by invoking Section 68 has to fail, for the very reason that as per the judgment in the case of of CIT Vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi [1982 (2) TMI 28 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] a bank pass book or bank statement cannot be considered to be a 'book' maintained by the assessee for any previous year for the purpose of Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, on this count itself the impugned addition deserves to be deleted.
As quashed the addition on the ground that no such addition could have been validly made u/s 68 of the Act, therefore, we refrain from adverting to the grounds wherein the assessee had assailed on merits the additions sustained by the CIT(A).
-
2018 (4) TMI 1865 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Permission to engage four qualified company secretaries for appointment of Company secretaries and Trainee Company secretaries as approved by this Hon’ble Court for a period of one year which can be further extended up to three years - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that fees/salary/remuneration for the Company secretaries were fixed before nine years, the recommendations of the Selection Committee to increase the fees/salary/remuneration of the Company secretaries as well as the Trainee Company secretaries could be accepted and therefore, the Official Liquidator is permitted to increase and pay the fees/salary/remuneration for the Company secretaries at ₹ 25,000/per month and ₹ 10,000/per month for Trainee Company secretaries. The Official Liquidator is permitted to make such payment of fees/salary/remuneration from the fund available with the office of Official Liquidator under the head of ‘Company paid staff salary reserve fund’.
Report disposed off.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1864 - ITAT DELHI
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - Revenue for not examining the issue of deduction u/s 35 (2AB) - HELD THAT:- As the assessee categorically stated before the ld.CIT that: “the ld. A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) did not call for any detail nor raised any query in regard to claim u/s 35(2AB).”
AR submitted that this information was erroneously given to the ld. CIT inasmuch as the Assessing Officer did make enquiry as was evident from his order sheet entry dated 03.02.2014 by which certain enquiry was conducted qua deduction u/s 35(2AB) - Without going into the authenticity of the claim of deduction, we find that the ld. CIT set aside the assessment order primarily on the assessee’s submission that the Assessing Officer did not call for any detail nor raised any query. Since this position does not prima facie appear to be correct, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of CIT for deciding it afresh as per law, after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes
-
2018 (4) TMI 1863 - ITAT BANGALORE
Ex-parte appeal - Non prosecution of appeal by assessee - non removal of defects - HELD THAT:- This appeal was fixed for hearing on 12.04.2018 and notice of hearing was sent to assessee’s address provided by assessee in form no. 36 and hence, the service of notice is presumed. In spite of this, none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the appointed date of hearing i.e. 12.04.2018 and therefore, the appeal of the assessee was heard ex-parte qua the assessee. This is also noted that along with the notice for hearing, defect memo was also issued to the assessee as per which it was pointed out that there are several defects being
a. Appeal fee not filed in minor head 300
b. Assessment order is not legible
c. Form 35 not filed in duplicate
The assessee has not removed these defects also. Under these facts, hold that the appeal of the assessee is not maintainable and by respectfully following the Tribunal order rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd [1991 (5) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-D] the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1862 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Settlement of petitioner's surrender leave salary for 84.5 days - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that there was 12(3) settlement between the parties. According to such settlement, employees would be entitled to surrender earned leave of 15 days in one year or 30 days in two years and the remaining 15 days or 30 days, as the case may be, shall be cumulatively accumulated as terminal earned leave benefit to the maximum of 240 days for the whole service.
During petitioner's service, between 2011 and 2014, though he could have surrendered the earned leave of 15 days in a year as per 12(3) settlement, the same was not made possible because the practice was done away by the respondent Corporation, as they have admitted in the answer given to the query under RTI Act - If the present circular dated 09.01.2017 enabling the employees to surrender earned leave of 15 days per year for the original period between 2011 and 2014, certainly, such benefits should be extended to all such employees. Insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, the petitioner also could not surrender his earned leave between 2011 and 2014 and therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to make such a claim by virtue of the Circular.
This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner shall also be eligible and entitled to surrender 15 days earned leave from the years 2011-2014, where the petitioner was in service and if such surrender is made, certainly, he will be entitled to claim the encashment for the said earned leave surrender - this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order passed by the respondent Corporation rejecting the said claim made by the petitioner for encashment of earned leave benefit between 2011 -2014 is unsustainable
The petitioner shall be entitled to claim the leave salary surrender encashment benefit depending upon his eligibility for the relevant years and since the petitioner has already made such a request on 24.03.2018, the same shall be accepted and the amount equivalent to surrender of earned leave shall be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition allowed.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1861 - ITAT PUNE
Admission of fresh evidence in First Appellate proceedings without compliance of Rule 46A(1) & (2) of the Income Tax Rules - HELD THAT:- CIT (Appeals) admitted additional evidence without giving chance to AO to rebut or cross-examine the fresh material filed as additional evidence. It is a settled position that additional evidence cannot be admitted as matter of right, unless the opposite side is allowed opportunity to controvert.
In the present case the additional evidence furnished by assessee were referred to TPO/Assessing Officer for examination and comments. The TPO after examining the documents agreed that manufacturing activity is being carried out by the assessee. Thus, there is due compliance of principles of natural justice. Each case has to be decided on its own facts. The general principle reiterated by the Hon’ble High Courts in the cases referred above is that no person should be condemned without giving opportunity of hearing.
No infirmity in the impugned order, accordingly, the same is upheld and the appeals of the Revenue for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 are dismissed.
............
|
