|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 1385 Records
-
2020 (10) TMI 1225 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Grant of Interim Bail - precarious medical condition of the accused-applicant - HELD THAT:- As per the medical report which has been taken into consideration by the Delhi High Court while granting interim bail, it appears that the accused-applicant is required some surgical treatment for his ailment and, it would be appropriate to provide interim bail for medical treatment pending this bail application for final order.
Considering the medical health of the accused-applicant, Anil Kumar Sharma involved in Case No.ECIR/06/PMLA/LKZO/2019 under Section 3/4 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, P.S. Enforcement Directorate, Lucknow Zone is released on interim bail for six weeks or till he is recovered, whichever is earlier, from the date of his release on his furnishing a personal bond of ₹ 1,00,000/- and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Court (P.M.L.A.), Lucknow to get himself treated at AIIMS, New Delhi - Application allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1224 - ITAT BANGALORE
Disallowance of provision made for privileged leave encashment - HELD THAT:- This issue is covered against the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of UOI and Ors Vs. Exide Industries Limited [2020 (4) TMI 792 - SUPREME COURT] as per this judgement, it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that clause (f) in section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid and operative for all purposes and this disallowance was made by the AO in both the years on the basis of this clause (f) of section 43B as can be seen on page 2 of the Assessment Order for Assessment Year 2011-12 and page 3 of the Assessment Order for Assessment Year 2012-13. In view of this factual and legal position, this issue is decided against the assessee.
Disallowance of provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts under section 36 (1) (VIIa) - HELD THAT:- The details as required as per Rule 6ABA were not furnished before the AO and the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to both sides. Since the facts in the present two years are similar, in the present two years also, we restore this matter back to the file of CIT(A) for a fresh decision after obtaining the remand report from the AO if the assessee files the required details before the CIT(A) in compliance of Rule 6ABA. Needless to say learned CIT(A) should provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to both sides. Accordingly, the relevant ground on this issue is allowed for statistical purposes in both the years.
TDS u/s 194A - disallowance of interest paid on bank deposits - Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) because Form No.15G / 15H were not submitted before the AO and no proof was submitted before the AO regarding filing the copy of the same before the concerned CIT - HELD THAT:- An opportunity should be given to the assessee to bring on record the respective Form No.15G/15H received by the assessee and assessee should also bring evidence on record regarding submission of those Form No.15G/15H before the concerned CIT even if such submission before CIT is delayed submission. We direct he AO that if the assessee brings such evidences on record and if it is found that Form No.15G/15H were available with the assessee and copy of the same was submitted with concerned CIT even if belatedly, assessee will get the benefit of availability of such Form No.15G/15H. Hence, we restore this matter back to the file of the AO for a fresh decision
-
2020 (10) TMI 1223 - ITAT DELHI
Validity of Reopening of assessment - invalidate sanction under section 151 - Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- Wrong Section have been mentioned in the reasons and some of the Columns material for re-assessment are left ‘Blank’ and that Addl. CIT did not record how he was satisfied on wrong facts and wrong reasons would clearly show that reopening have been done in the matter without application of mind based on wrong facts and as such the reopening of the assessment cannot be justified. It may also be noted here that the Learned Addl. CIT, Range-12, Delhi while granting sanction under section 151 of the I.T. Act has mentioned in the reasons that “Yes, I am satisfied that this is a fit case for reopening under section 147.”
Such a satisfaction was not found valid by ITAT, Delhi Benches in the cases of Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Industries Ltd., Delhi [2020 (9) TMI 1153 - ITAT DELHI] and M/s. Behat Holdings Ltd., Delhi vs., ITO, Ward-4(3), New Delhi[2020 (1) TMI 1358 - ITAT DELHI] based on several decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts. Thus, the issue is covered against the Revenue by the above decisions of the Tribunal as well. The A.O. has thus no justification to assume jurisdiction under section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961, in a Lawful manner and as such the same are liable to be quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1222 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Provisional Attachment of property - HELD THAT:- Let Notice be issued to the respondents returnable on 19.10.2020.
On the returnable date, we expect the respondent No.5 to indicate by way of an appropriate reply as to his reasonable belief to take the decision to pass an order of provisional attachment of the property in exercise of his powers under Section 83 of the GST Act.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1221 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, COURT - II
Misappropriation of property - petitioners are are the shareholders in the first Respondent company and together they are holding 37% of shares of the issued capital - allegation that the Respondents are misappropriating the property of the first Respondent company and in case the property is sold and consideration is taken by the Respondents in their personal accounts, they will deprive the Petitioners of their rights - HELD THAT:- The petitioners have made out prima facie case, balance of convenience is in the favour of Petitioners and in case the property of the Respondent No. 1 is sold, the same will cause irreparable loss to the Petitioners and Respondent No. 7. This cannot be compensated in terms of money.
The Respondents no. 2 to 7 are restrained from selling property of the Respondent no. 1. till further orders. Besides this, the Respondents are also directed not to change the share holding pattern of the first Respondent company without seeking prior permission from this Tribunal - List the matter on 12th November 2020.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1220 - SUPREME COURT
Review Petition - proceedings under Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT - HELD THAT:- We request the High Court to take up the review petition in the meantime. In the event that the High Court considers it appropriate to take up and dispose of the main writ petition, it is entirely at liberty to do so.
No coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners till the next date of hearing - List the Special Leave Petition on 26 October 2020.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1219 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Approval of revised rates of license fees for the advertising hoardings in private properties - collection of license fees in garb of tax for the advertisement hoardings in the private properties - HELD THAT:- The petitioners have consistently paid the license fees on the advertisement hoardings in a private property as per the provision of Section 386(2) of the GPMC Act prior to 1992 onwards and at no point of time the petitioners have challenged the power to levy the license fees under the provisions of Section 386(2) of the GPMC Act. It is also pertinent to note that in the year 2012, the petitioners agreed for levy of the license fees by enhancing the rate by 10% every year after initial embargo of 5 years. Thus, the petitioners can be said to have waived the right to challenge the power to levy of fees for the license for outdoor advertising hoardings in private properties.
When an Article of Constitution is an enabling provision, it does not mean that the State is obligated to provide for such a statute and on that ground existing laws could be stuck down only on that premise - Section 386(2) of the GPMC Act is in operation since 1949 and the challenge thereto being ultra vires to the Articles of the Constitution would result in detriment to the public interest since the amount of license fee being collected by the Municipal Corporation along with the other amount collected by way of tax or otherwise are always being utilized for the benefit of people at large.
The Court should be conscious of the position as to the extent of public interest involved when the provisions operate the field as against the prevention of such operation. Even if the writ court is of the view that the challenge raised requires to be considered, then again it will have to be examined, while entertaining the challenge raised for consideration, whether it calls for prevention of the operation of the provisions in the larger interests of the public. An attempt has been made only to set out some of the basic consideration to be borne in mind by the writ court and the same is not exhaustive. In other words, the writ court should examine such other grounds for consideration while considering a challenge on the ground of vires to a statute or the provision of law made before it for the purpose of entertaining it and when such writ petitions are entertained, those petitions should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and on a time-bound basis, so that the legal position is settled one way or the other.
On bare perusal of Sub-section-2 of Section-386 of the GPMC Act, it cannot be said that the Commissioner has excessive delegation because license fees which may be charged by the Commissioner shall come into effect only after the sanction of the Corporation and not otherwise. Thus, in effect sub-section-2 provides for procedure and limits in form of checks and balances to control the power conferred upon the Commissioner to levy the fees for the licenses to be issued as per Subsection-1 of Section 386 - It is also pertinent to note that Subsection-2 starts with the words “except as may otherwise be provided by and under this Act”, which means that it is an exception carved out from other provisions of the Act providing for any fees of license which may be issued under Sub-section-1 of Section 386. The Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation is therefore, empowered to levy fee at such rate from time to time which may be fixed but such power is subject to the sanction of the Corporation.
The fees to be charged as per the provisions of Sub-section-2 of Section 386 cannot be said to be having unbridled or unfettered power. It is also evident from the materials on record that the levy of fees to be charged for advertisement hoardings in private properties does not become effective immediately when the Commissioner proposes unless and until the same is approved by the Standing Committee which in turn is required to be approved and sanction by the Corporation as provided under Sub-section-2 of Section-386 of the GPMC Act.
The provisions of Sub-section-2 of Section 386 of the GPMC Act is constitutionally valid as per Etnry-5 read with Entry-66 of list-II of the VIIth Schedule and deletion of Entry-55 of list-2 cannot be said to have any effect on the power to levy fees as provided by Section 386(2) of the GPMC Act - the provisions which are inconsistent with any of the provision of part-IX of the Constitution of India including Article 243X would be required to be amended but the provision contained in Section 386(2) of the GPMC Act cannot be said to be inconsistent with any of the provision of part-IX of Constitution of India and therefore, Article 243ZF would not come into play in the facts of the case.
The submissions of the petitioner that provision of Sub-section-2 of Section 386 suffers from excessive delegation and provided for unguided and uncanalised power to the Commissioner as there is no procedure for limits for imposition of fees in absence of any guideline is concerned, it is settled position of law that the guidelines are required to be prescribed by legislature in case where there is levy of tax and not in case where there is imposition of fees.
If the State Government is of the opinion that execution of any resolution or order of the Corporation for any of other Municipal Authority or officer subordinate thereto for doing of any act, which is about to be done or has been done for and on behalf of the Corporation is in contravention of excess of powers conferred by the GPMC Act or any other law for the time being in force or such action is likely to lead breach of the peace etc., then the State Government may by order in writing suspend the execution of order or prohibit doing of any such act. Therefore, even the sanction of the Corporation as provided under Sub-section-2 of Section 386 is subject to the control of the State Government as provided under Section 451 of the GPMC Act. In view of the above, it cannot be said that there is excessive delegation by legislature upon the Commissioner for determination of the levy of the fees under Sub-section-2 of Section 386 of the GPMC Act.
These writ applications fail and are accordingly rejected subject to the right of the petitioners to challenge the quantum of license fees before the State Government as per the provisions of the GPMC Act in accordance with law. The respondent State Government is therefore, directed to consider such challenge if made by the petitioners without being influenced in any manner by what has been stated hereinabove and decide such challenge as expeditiously as possible.
Application disposed off.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1218 - ITAT CUTTACK
Addition on account of provision for dam maintenance - allowable expenditure - assessee follows mercantile system of accounting as per which liability for expenses can be recognized and claimed only when the liability crystallizes - HELD THAT:- CIT-A observed that though the expenditure have been incurred by the assessee for dam maintenance, it was kept under provision account for settlement with the government against amounts receivable from the Government - CIT(A) relying on the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case allowed the provision for dam maintenance. - Decided against revenue.
Disallowance of depreciation - assessee did not produce the details of the assets on which depreciation has been claimed @ 25% - HELD THAT:- Assessee company appearing before the Ld. A.O. vide its written submission explained that the miscellaneous assets as aforesaid have been considered as plant and machinery and accordingly the depreciation as provided under the I.T. Rules for the plant and machinery have been claimed by the assessee on such assets - A.O. without appreciation the explanation and observing that in absence of the break up of details of such assets not being furnished has disallowed the claim of depreciation on such assets. In this connection, it is pertinent to state here that during the previous year i.e., relevant to the Asst. Year 2004-05, no disallowances as called for on these assets. Since presently the assessee has explained the particulars of assets and their classification under the head plant and machinery, the assessee company is entitled for depreciation as claimed. Under the circumstances the disallowance on this account are not sustainable on fact and law - Decided in favour of assessee.
Addition towards provision for guarantee commission - not an allowable expenditure - CIT(A) held that the claim of guarantee commission is in accordance with the business requirement and as such allowable - HELD THAT:- As per letter No. SG-21/07/3810/F dt. 29.1.2008 relating to the Dy. Accounting General (Commercial) from the Addl. Secretary to the Govt. of Odisha, the guarantee commission could not be reduced since the guarantee amount given by the Government of Odisha has not been reduced. The appellant is required to pay the guarantee commission on the maximum amount of guarantee irrespective of the loan outstanding as long as the guarantee amount itself has not been reduced. In view of the same, the claim of guarantee commission is in accordance with the business requirement and as such allowable. The addition made by the AO in this regard is deleted - Decided against revenue.
Provision for Leave Encashment - HELD THAT:- Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Exide Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India, [2007 (6) TMI 175 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has struck down the provisions of Section 43B(f) of the Act as being arbitrary and unconscionable. Thereafter the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Exide Industries Ltd. [2009 (5) TMI 894 - SC ORDER] has stayed the operation of the judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. Considering the above position, the Tribunal on the similar issue in case of Ernst and Young P. Ltd. [2015 (3) TMI 931 - ITAT KOLKATA] has restored the matter to the file of AO for fresh adjudication - Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal and we restore this issue to the file of AO to examine and allow the claim of the assessee and we allow this ground of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.
Non-disclosure of dues from DOWR - HELD THAT:- Assessee has already conceded to the addition made by the AO for which the CIT(A) has upheld the action of AO. Accordingly, we do not see any good reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the CIT(A) in this regard.
Prior Period Expenses - HELD THAT:- As decided in [2017 (9) TMI 1902 - ITAT CUTTACK] we restore the matter to the file of AO who shall examine the genuineness and crystallisation of the expenses in the financial year and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information.
Non-disclosure of interest on advance to contractor - HELD THAT:- Assessee during the course of hearing submitted that since the advance was given to contractor for capital construction by the assessee, therefore, the same deserves to be allowed. In view of the above, we restore the issue to the file of AO and direct the AO to examine the nature of advance as to whether it was given during the period of construction before commencement of commercial production of the assessee. If it is found that it was given during the construction period for the capital asset construction, the assessee's contention may be accepted. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1217 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Transitional Credit - submission of declaration in Form GST TRAN-1 on 27th December, 2017 in time - vires of Articles 14, 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT:- In this case, we are not examining the issue whether the Petitioner is entitled to VAT tax credit as claimed by the Petitioner which will be examined by the authorities. What we are concerned with is that despite the admitted successful filing of Form TRAN-1 by the Petitioner on 27th December, 2017, the request of the Petitioner for transitioning of credit has not been approved by the ITGRC merely on the basis that there were no technical glitches on the GSTN side. There is no further explanation or clarification or evidence on the issue by the Respondents. Even the learned Sr. Counsel for the Respondents has only reiterated this stand during his submission.
The whole objective of digitization is to convenience the tax payers and not to harass them. We are conscious that the GST system is still evolving in its implementation. We are of the view that merely because there were no technical glitches in the GSTN with respect to the Petitioner’s TRAN-1 which was admittedly filed in time, the claim of the Petitioner, if it was otherwise eligible in law, cannot be rejected for no apparent fault on the part of the Petitioner. This cannot be the objective of the GST system or digitisation. Such a situation cannot be countenanced as it would be wholly unfair and unjust - this is a fit case for invocation of our writ jurisdiction.
The Respondents are directed to consider the case of the Petitioner and after looking into the merits of the claim and physically or otherwise verifying the amount of VAT as claimed by the Petitioner take such actions as may be necessary for transitioning the credit of such amount into the Petitioner’s credit ledger/ electronic credit ledger within four weeks from the date of this order.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1216 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Grant of regular bail - Sections 132(1)(b)(c) of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act - HELD THAT:- The criminal trial for the offences under Section 132 of the PGST Act, 2017 as also the arrest under Section 69 are without jurisdiction, having no backing of the constitutional provisions - The petitioner has been in custody for a period of 4 months and 14 day. The trial will take time to conclude, especially due to prevailing situation of Covid-19.
The moot question of law regarding the stage of initiation of prosecution under the Finance Act is involved; complaint is triable by a Magistrate; the petitioner is not required for further custodial investigation - Thus, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to him furnishing bail/surety bonds.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1215 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Confiscation of vehicle alongwiith the goods - owner/driver/person in charge of the goods conveyance Shri has not tendered any documents for the goods in movement - defective documents - E-Way bill not tendered - HELD THAT:- The writ applicant is engaged in the business of Tobacco etc. The writ applicant holds registration under the GST. The writ applicant received an order for supply of 14694 Kgs of Tobacco from a firm situated at Meghalaya running in the name of M/s. J.J. Exports & Imports.
A show-cause notice was issued to the writ applicant in Form GST MOV-10 calling upon the writ applicant to show-cause as to why the goods and the conveyance should not be confiscated under Section 130 of the GST Act, 2017. It appears that before the writ applicant could respond to the notice issued in Form GST MOV-10, the final order of confiscation in Form GST MOV-11 came to be passed on the very same date, i.,e, 25th July, 2020 - It appears from the materials on record and the facts recorded above that no opportunity of hearing was given by the authority concerned to the writ applicant to meet with the notice issued in Form GST MOV-10.
The matter is remitted to the authority concerned for giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ applicant - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1214 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Removal of Provisional attachment of Bank Accounts - Section 83 of the GST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Section 83 talks about the opinion which is necessary to be formed for the purpose of protecting the interest of the government revenue. Any opinion of the authority to be formed is not subject to objective test. The language leaves no room for the relevance of an official examination as to the sufficiency of the ground on which the authority may act in forming its opinion. But, at the same time, there must be material based on which alone the authority could form its opinion that it has become necessary to order provisional attachment of the goods or the bank account to protect the interest of the government revenue. The existence of relevant material is a precondition to the formation of opinion. The use of the word “may” indicates not only the discretion, but an obligation to consider that a necessity has arisen to pass an order of provisional attachment with a view to protect the interest of the government revenue. Therefore, the opinion to be formed by the Commissioner or take a case by the delegated authority cannot be on imaginary ground, wishful thinking, howsoever laudable that may be. Such a course is impermissible in law.
In the absence of any cogent or credible material, if the subjective satisfaction is arrived at by the authority concerned for the purpose of passing an order of provisional attachment under Section 83 of the Act, then such action amounts to malice in law. Malice in its legal sense means such malice as may be assumed from the doing of a wrongful act intentionally but also without just cause or excuse or for want of reasonable or probably cause. Any use of discretionary power exercised for an unauthorized purpose amounts to malice in law. It is immaterial whether the authority acted in good faith or bad faith.
The order of provisional attachment of the five bank accounts of the writ applicant under Section 83 of the Act is quashed and set aside - Application allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1213 - SC ORDER
TP Adjustment - ALP of the guarantee commission charges provided by the Respondent Co. - Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) - acquisition of business by way of investing into shares of that company through either Special Purpose Vehicle or directly cannot be considered to be ordinary event of the business and therefore, cannot be termed as expenditure incurred for the purpose of assessee’s business, which is providing ITES services - HELD THAT: Special Leave Petitions are dismissed on the ground of delay.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1212 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Increase the professional fees for filing of income tax return of each companies under liquidation - HELD THAT:- Pursuant to the request letter dated 05.09.2020 to the Office of Official Liquidator regarding enhancement of professional fees for filing income tax return of various companies in liquidation from present rate i.e. ₹ 1300/- to ₹ 2500/- per company per assessment year, accordingly, learned advocate for the applicant has made a request to revise the professional fees.
Having heard submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Pathik Acharaya and after perusal of the order passed the Co- ordinate Bench on 03.05.2013, and having regard to provisions incorporated in Income Tax Act, prayer appears to be reasonable and deserves to be partly accepted.
Professional fees for filing income tax of each company in liquidation is fixed at ₹ 2000/-. Official Liquidator is permitted to make payment as per facts mentioned in para 4 to 6 of this report.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1211 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - whether there is no exempt income received even if the investments have been made in the subsidiary company of the Assessee? - HELD THAT:- Tribunal found that the investments were made in by their assessee and this cannot be construed that investment is made for earning exempt income.
Tribunal rightly held that the provisions of Section 14A of the Act would not stand attracted. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal requires to be confirmed.- Decided in favour of assessee.
Section 43A Applicability - Assessee is acquiring the assets in India and in consequence of loan taken in Indian currency for acquisition of such asset which was converted into foreign currency loan increasing the liability as expressed in Indian Currency - HELD THAT:- Tribunal decided the said position against the Revenue in the assessee's own case [2020 (10) TMI 1164 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1210 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Computation of the ALP - Reason for selection by CASS (Computer Aided Search Selection) - approval of the PCIT for reference of the matter to the TPO - HELD THAT:- The petitioners’ submission to the effect that the reason for selection of scrutiny by CASS only involves a numerical reconciliation is, in our view an over simplification of the reason stated for selection. Perhaps the officer might have been more detailed in the choice of words employed so as to specifically refer to the issue of total employee cost. Non-reference to this is not fatal as the reason for selection by CASS has been produced and placed on record by the Officer while seeking approval of the PCIT for reference of the matter to the TPO.
After the expiry of the interim protection by this Court on 29.03.2019 the Assessing Officer has issued a show cause notice dated 11.10.2019 in response to which the petitioner has replied on 23.10.2019 enclosing various details on the computation of the ALP as sought for by the Officer. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition however, is silent in regard to these facts. The petitioner has thus not only cooperated and participated in the conduct of assessment but has also filed objections before the DRP that are pending disposal. WP disamissed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1209 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital gain computation - adoption of stamp duty value fixed by the DRO (Stamps) - section 50C applicability - Whether the stamp duty value/guideline value as on the date of presentation of the sale document for registration is relevant for the provisions of Section 50C and not the enhanced value determined under the Stamp Duty Laws subsequently? - HELD THAT:- Sub Registrar entertained the document for registration, did not accept the value computed at ₹ 400/- per square feet for the purpose of calculating the Stamp duty payable under the Indian Stamp Act on the said deed of conveyance, but determined the value of the property at ₹ 555/- per Square feet. Unfortunately, the Assessing Officer, while reopening the assessment, took note of this figure namely ₹ 555/- per square feet and recomputed the total sale consideration.
The recomputation of the total sale consideration based on the higher value fixed by the Sub Registrar is for the purposes of computing Stamp duty is wholly erroneous. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1208 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Benefit of Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme ('VVS Scheme') - Substantial Questions of Law framed for consideration on account of certain subsequent developments - Option to appeal in case application for settlement is rejected - HELD THAT:- It may not be necessary for this Court to decide the Substantial Questions of Law framed for consideration on account of certain subsequent developments. The Government of India enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) to provide for resolution of disputed tax and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act of the Parliament received the assent of the President on 17th March 2020 and published in the Gazette of India on 17th March 2020.
In terms of the said Act, the assessee has been given an option to put an end to the tax disputes, which may be pending at different levels either before the First Appellate Authority or before the Tribunal or before the High Court or before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
The assessee is given liberty to restore this appeal in the event the ultimate decision to be taken on the declaration to be filed by the assessee under Section 4 of the said Act is not in favour of the assessee. If such a prayer is made, the Registry shall entertain the prayer without insisting upon any application to be filed for condonation of delay in restoration of the appeal and on such request made by the assessee by filing a Miscellaneous Petition for Restoration, the Registry shall place such petition before the Division Bench for orders.
We direct the appellant / assessee to file the Form No.I on or before 09.11.2020 and the competent authority shall process the application / declaration in accordance with the Act and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six (6) weeks from the date on which the declaration is filed in the proper form.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1207 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Benefit of Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme ('VVS Scheme') - Substantial Questions of Law framed for consideration on account of certain subsequent developments - Option to appeal in case application for settlement is rejected - HELD THAT:- It may not be necessary for this Court to decide the Substantial Questions of Law framed for consideration on account of certain subsequent developments. The Government of India enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) to provide for resolution of disputed tax and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act of the Parliament received the assent of the President on 17th March 2020 and published in the Gazette of India on 17th March 2020.
In terms of the said Act, the assessee has been given an option to put an end to the tax disputes, which may be pending at different levels either before the First Appellate Authority or before the Tribunal or before the High Court or before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
The assessee is given liberty to restore this appeal in the event the ultimate decision to be taken on the declaration to be filed by the assessee under Section 4 of the said Act is not in favour of the assessee. If such a prayer is made, the Registry shall entertain the prayer without insisting upon any application to be filed for condonation of delay in restoration of the appeal and on such request made by the assessee by filing a Miscellaneous Petition for Restoration, the Registry shall place such petition before the Division Bench for orders.
We direct the appellant / assessee to file the Form No.I on or before 09.11.2020 and the competent authority shall process the application / declaration in accordance with the Act and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six (6) weeks from the date on which the declaration is filed in the proper form.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1206 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Revision u/s 263 - order of reassessment proceedings cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of revenue - HELD THAT:- No question of law arising in the present appeals by the Revenue, as the learned Tribunal has clearly noted in its impugned order quoted above that the above capital gains have already been subjected to tax in the subsequent assessment years AY 1988-1999 to 2000-2001. He submitted that for the present assessment year AY 1997-98, even though the Assessing Authority himself has accepted that there were no transfer of land in the Joint Venture Agreement for development of the property had taken place in this AY 1997-98, still by resorting to Section 263, it cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, as held by the learned Commissioner, which has been rightly set aside by the learned Tribunal by the impugned order and therefore, no question of law arises.
............
|
