TMI Tax Updates - e-Newsletter
October 27, 2020
Case Laws in this Newsletter:
GST
Income Tax
Customs
Central Excise
CST, VAT & Sales Tax
Highlights / Catch Notes
-
Income Tax:
ITAT confirmed the deletion of additions by the CIT(A) - Finding of the tribunal, directly and substantially interferes in the interest of revenue and the finding are not based on the evidence brought on record by the assessing officer and the order of the Tribunal suffers from material irregularities without any independent reasons, it has glossed over the relevant facts, which were brought on record by the assessing officer and therefore, the impugned orders are perverse and undoubtedly, perversity can be taken up in an appeal under Section 260A of the Act. - HC
-
Income Tax:
Addition u/s 68 - Unexplained cash credit - Revenue, in these matters, established that there was no genuineness in the transactions sought to be projected on behalf of the assessees. Therefore, the Revenue, in these matters, has discharged the onus, assuming that such onus had indeed shifted upon the revenue. - Additions confirmed - The finding recorded by the ITAT in these matters is based upon the wholly erroneous view of law and perversity on account of ignoring completely, vital and relevant circumstances emanating from the record. - HC
-
Income Tax:
Levy of fees u/s. 234E - delay in filing Form No.26Q - TDS returns / statements - AO is not empowered to charge fees u/s 234E of the Act by way of intimations issued u/s 200A of the Act in respect of defaults before 01.06.2015 - AT
-
Income Tax:
Revision u/s 263 - When the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3)/153A is not erroneous, the findings of the Ld.CIT(Central) in his order passed u/s. 263 has no relevance and such order of the Ld.CIT is not sustainable in law. - AT
-
Income Tax:
Addition on account of cash found short u/s 68 and also holding that the same to be taxed u/s 115BBE - Cash short, at the most represents expenses / outgoings out of cash available with the assessee not accounted for in the books of the assessee - How therefore can they be treated or deemed to be income of the assessee u/s 69/69B/69C of the Act when the said sections deem investments/money, the source of which the assessee offers no explanation about, as income of the assessee? - Additions deleted - AT
-
Income Tax:
Eligibility for exemption u/s 11 - Section 2(15) and the corresponding sections including Sections 11, 12, 12A and 12AA are independent of Section 10(20A) of the Act. Upon the omission of Section 10(20A), the provisions of the other sections were not affected. They remained intact. An assessee could have been entitled to the provisions of Section 10(20A) and the other provisions simultaneously. The omission of one, however, does not affect the validity or the existence of the others. - AT
-
Income Tax:
The addition made by the AO except the addition made on account of bogus purchases which was the subject matter of reassessment, are not sustainable. Once, it is established that the AO has made fishing and roving enquiry, the additions made as a result of such enquiry cannot be confirmed - AT
-
Central Excise:
CENVAT Credit - input services - marine insurance services - the plea that general insurance services fall under the exclusion clause is not appropriate to the given facts and circumstances for the reason that the general insurance services only with respect to motor vehicles are covered under the exclusion part of the definition of input services. - AT
Articles
Notifications
Circulars / Instructions / Orders
News
Case Laws:
-
GST
-
2020 (10) TMI 1030
Maintainability of petition - Seizure of goods along with vehicle - generation of e-way bills where the value of the consignment is less than ₹ 50,000/- - HELD THAT:- On plain and simple reading of proviso to Sub Rule 3 it is evident that registered person or transporter at his option is obliged to generate and carry e-way bill even if the value of the consignment is less than ₹ 50,000/-. The orders under challenge in my view are amaenable to appeal as per the provisions of Section 107 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. In all cases of seizure in order to obliterate inconsistency in the application of law and do away with the multiple appeals, discretion has been left to the competent authority to decide the adjudication as early as possible in accordance with law - petition dismissed.
-
Income Tax
-
2020 (10) TMI 1029
Block Assessment - Unexplained cash - Whether CIT(A) admitted additional evidence under Rule 46A without providing an opportunity of being heard to the Assessing Officer? - applicability of Rule 46A - Whether ITAT was correct in confirming the learned CIT(A)'s order in giving relief on all the issues? - HELD THAT:- CIT-A has criticized the conduct of the search party and considered the status of the assessee and his family members and therefore, held that the cash cannot be treated as undisclosed income. We do not approve of this finding. In Paragraph No.5.3, the CIT-A held that having regard to the volume of transaction of the company, the income returned as also the amount involved cannot be treated as undisclosed income. This finding is also not borne out by any records. With regard to the pronotes, which do not have the name of the person, the CIT-A held that the amounts represented by the Pronotes should be treated as bad debts, to be set off against the assesses pronotes advances and income there for. This appears to have never been the assessee's case and it is a finding rendered by the CIT-A on presumptions and assumptions, because the assessee did not furnish the details, when called upon to do so by letter dated 25.01.2005. In his subsequent reply dated 25.02.2005, the assessee stated he has not claimed any money in respect of the pronotes.Therefore, finding in Paragraph No.6.3 is wholly erroneous. CIT-A faults the assessing officer for not having made verifications with the borrowers, who are all assessees and accordingly, deleted the addition. This conclusion has been arrived at by the CITA without noting that it is for the assessee to establish by producing books of accounts. CIT-A states that the assessee has flatly denied having any unaccounted transactions and faulted the assessing officer for not bringing on record any material, though the CIT-A states that the assessing officer proceeded on assumptions and presumptions, we find it is CIT-A which proceeded on assumptions. CIT-A records the submissions of the assessee that the said addition of ₹ 1,26,73,370/- is more comical than illegal. Without taking note of the fact that upon considering the explanation, the assessing officer found that except transaction with M/s Akhand Pharma represented by its proprietor, Dr.Shivbushan Sharma, the assessee stated that no one is his creditor and no loan has been borrowed from him. CIT-A ought to have seen that the assessee should have established the same. Therefore, we do not approve the finding in Paragraph No.9.3. With regard to the investments CITA proceeded to accept the explanation given by the assessee before the assessing officer without taking note of the discussion contained in Paragraph Nos.10.1 and 10.2 of the assessment order, therefore, we hold that the finding in Paragraph No.14.3 is unsubstantiated and without reasons. CIT-A held that additions were baseless and this finding is rendered based on written submissions filed by the assessee - presumptive statement and personal opinion made by the CITA and could not have lead to deletion of the addition. CIT-A comes to a conclusion that some of the shares have been repeated by the assessing officer and has not listed out which are those shares, but given only a few illustrations and such observation, cannot automatically lead to the deletion of the addition of ₹ 20 Lakhs. The said finding is wholly erroneous. Addition in the name of the assessee's minor daughter - Assessee's daughter inherited more than of ₹ 43 Lakhs from the assessee's mother, who passed away in the year 1991 and after considering all aspects, made the addition - CIT- A held that assessing officer has disregarded all evidence and proceeded on the basis of conjunctures and surmises. In fact, the order passed by the CITA is based on conjunctures and surmises because he has not recorded any reasons as to why the finding of the assessing officer in Paragraph No.20 is factually incorrect. CITA holds that the assessee does not own any such bungalow. It is not clear as to where from he came to such a conclusion, when the assessing officer has recorded that in Page 95 of the seized documents shows that assessee entered into an agreement for purchase of Bungalow at Mumbai, therefore, the finding is perverse. With regard to the fixed deposits - AO found that the fixed deposits are not reflected in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee and his relatives in the tally package and hence, the fixed deposits mentioned in Paragraph No.22 of the assessment order except that of Akshay Sarin was assessed as undisclosed income. CIT-A states that considering the status of the assessee and the other relatives, the amount of deposits there is no warrant to treat them as undisclosed income, this finding is utterly perverse. Tribunal has not given any independent finding on the correctness of the order of the assessing officer, but merely goes by the observations rendered by the CITA, which we have found to be erroneous, therefore, the decision relied on by the Tribunal can in no manner help the assessee's case. Admittedly, in the instant case, the search was concluded between 27.03.2003 to 28.08.2003, the assessing officer had issued several letters, collected the response of the assessee and then proceeded to decide the matter. In several places, it was found that the assessee attempted to buttress his case based on records / returns submitted after the search. These issues were never considered by the Tribunal. Thus, we find that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is wholly unsustainable without noting the factual and legal position. Finding of the tribunal, directly and substantially interferes in the interest of revenue and the finding are not based on the evidence brought on record by the assessing officer and the order of the Tribunal suffers from material irregularities without any independent reasons, it has glossed over the relevant facts, which were brought on record by the assessing officer and therefore, the impugned orders are perverse and undoubtedly, perversity can be taken up in an appeal under Section 260A of the Act. A finding on a question of fact can be challenged as being erroneous in law, when there is no evidence to support it or when it is based on surmises and conjunctures. The order of the CITA suffers from perversity, which has travelled up to the Tribunal, which confirmed the order of the CIT-A. Therefore, the argument that generally, the Court under Section 260A would not interfere with the Tribunal's finding of fact cannot be applied to the facts of this case because the Tribunal did not record any finding of fact that the finding of fact recorded by the assessing officer is erroneous and not borne out by records. - Decided in favour of the Revenue.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1028
Unaccounted cash receipts - material on record that this amount was paid to M/s. Good Earth Developers and M/s. Raj Hospitality Pvt. Ltd - HELD THAT:- Nature of such amounts can be very well assessed in the hands of said recipients and need not be assessed in the hands of the assessees.Since, there is material on record, that this amount of ₹ 11.26 crores or thereabouts was paid by the assessee to the aforesaid two entities and since there is evidence on record that the aforesaid two entities had admitted to the receipt of the said amount, the Commissioner (Appeals), was quite right in taking the view that such amounts are best assessed in the hands of the two entities and not in the hands of the assessee. Unable to satisfy us that there was any illegality in the view taken or any perversity in the approach of the Commissioner (Appeals) in so far as the treatment of this amount was concerned. Accordingly, the first substantial question of law needs to be answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessees. This question is answered against the Revenue only because we agree with the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) that it is only appropriate that this amount is assessed in the hands of the two recipient entities as aforesaid and not the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition u/s 68 - Unexplained cash credit - HELD THAT:- Even if we were to accept that the assessee by pointing out to Mr. Siraj Sheikh, Vijay Kumar Rao, and M/s. Prasad Properties had discharged the initial burden cast upon them by Section 68 we find that the onus which had shifted upon the Revenue, has been appreciably discharged by the Revenue. This is not a case where the Revenue, halted its probe soon after the so-called sources were indicated by the assessee. Revenue, in these matters, probed further and unearthed quality material to establish that the socalled sources completely lacked the capacity or credit-worthiness to advance such a huge amount of ₹ 8.49 crores to the assessees.Revenue, in these matters, established that there was no genuineness in the transactions sought to be projected on behalf of the assessees. Therefore, the Revenue, in these matters, has discharged the onus, assuming that such onus had indeed shifted upon the revenue. Again, this is an aspect, which was ignored by the ITAT. The finding recorded by the ITAT in these matters is based upon the wholly erroneous view of law and perversity on account of ignoring completely, vital and relevant circumstances emanating from the record. Such a finding can be interfered in an appeal under Section 260A of the said Act. The legal position is quite settled that where the findings arrived at by the Tribunal are based upon the wholly erroneous view of the law or are vitiated by perversity, a substantial question of law indeed arises and is required to be addressed in an appeal under Section 260A of the said Act. If at all, any authority is necessary for this proposition, then reference can be usefully made to Nemi Chand Kothari [2003 (9) TMI 62 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] relied upon by the assessees themselves. We answer the second substantial question of law in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee .
-
2020 (10) TMI 1027
Substantial questions law - Court s earlier refusal to frame a third substantial question of law - HELD THAT:- Sub-section (4) of Section 260A, especially the proviso appended to it, liberates the High Court to formulate and hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law not formulated by it. But it does not, despite the Revenue s insistence, empower the High Court to reconsider its earlier view in the same proceedings and reformulate a question of law which it had refused to formulate. In other words, (1) a question that escaped the Court s earlier attention, or (2) a question the appellant not presented to the Court, or even (3) a question that cropped up because of subsequent developments stands on a different footing. But a question the High Court consciously refused to treat as a substantial question of law fails to qualify under none of the above three categories. Revenue ought to have challenged this Court s order, dated 7 January 2016, which refused to frame a particular question as a substantial question of law. That said, the Revenue is not remediless. If it chooses to question the High Court's judgment u/s 260A of the Act before the Apex Court, it may have its options open. It may comprehensively contend even on the grounds that the High Court has erred in not formulating a substantial question of law at the stage of admission. Res Judicata and Tax Disputes - second contention the Revenue has advanced is that the concept of res judicata is alien to the tax jurisprudence - Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd., [ 2015 (8) TMI 421 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] has stressed two aspects. One concerns consistency; it is the law's cardinal virtue. That is, even if the principle of res judicata does not apply to tax matters, yet consistency and certainty of law would require the State to take a uniform position and not change their stand in the absence of change in facts and/or the law. The second one concerns the distinct factors that differentiate one order from the other. That is, a mere change in the assessment year, will not warrant an appeal. The appellant should show distinctive features either in facts or in law warrant a different treatment to the order in the succeeding assessment year. Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd., found no distinction in facts or law between the orders for AY 2002-03 and AY 2003-04. Unquestionable as the proposition of law in Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd., we wonder how it relates to the issue before us. Regrettably, this case does not help the Revenue s cause. What we have been faced with may not be termed res judicata per se. In some jurisdictions, it is called the law of the case: entertaining what has been rejected earlier in the same proceedings. And we have addressed that principle above. So even if we were to hold that res judicata is alien to adjudication under taxation regime, that plea is unavailable for the Revenue here. Maintainability of appeal - Circular - Ministry of Finance, the Government of India, has issued Circular No.17/2019. It reveals the Revenue s policy decision. To file appeals before the High Court, the Central Board of Direct Taxes has fixed the limit of ₹ 1,00,00,000/-. Here, the disputed tax falls short of that amount. In tune with the Revenue s consistent policy, the learned Standing Counsel has already told us that if this Court does not find favour with the Revenue on the additional substantial questions of law it wanted us to frame, there is nothing further in this matter to be adjudicated. Given this Court s earlier refusal to frame a third substantial question of law, now it has been left with only two questions of law. And because of the Circular CBDT No.17/2019, dt. 08.08.2019 and clarification dated 20.08.2019, these questions of law need no adjudication, for the disputed tax falls below ₹ 1 Crore.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1026
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) - as argued disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D cannot exceed disallowance made in the return of income - HELD THAT:- The amount of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules cannot exceed the amount of disallowance made by the assessee in the return of income. We are of the view that such observations made by the Tribunal should be looked into in the context and the facts available in the present case. The observations should not be construed or understood to mean that the aforesaid disallowance cannot exceed the s uo motu disallowance made by the assessee in the return of income. In some cases, applying the formula laid down in Rule 8D, the disallowance may exceed such suo motu disallowance made by the assessee.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1025
Capital gain computation - exemption claimed u/s. 54 denied - AO CIT (A) not referring the matter to DVO even after requested by the assessee - Whether AO CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact about the disadvantaged to the location of the property in question? - HELD THAT:- Assessee made a request before the Assessing Officer that if the explanation of the assessee is not accepted that the market value is less than the stamp duty valuation the valuation of the property may be referred to the valuation cell of the department to compute the market value. This was completely ignored by the AO and also the Ld.CIT(A). Sub-section 50C(2) of the Act is very clear if the valuation of the property as arrived at by the stamp valuation authority is disputed by the assessee the As relying on ABBAS T. RESHAMWALA (PROP. DYNAMIC IMPRESSION) VERSUS I.T.O., WARD 22 (3) (1) , MUMBAI [ 2009 (11) TMI 943 - ITAT MUMBAI] we direct the AO to refer the matter to the DVO for valuation of the property as per the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 50C and to determine the capital gains in accordance with law. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1024
Disallowance u/s.14A - method of calculation prescribed in Rule 8D - method of working of disallowance - Assessee had suomoto disallowed an amount - CIT-A directed the Assessing Officer to work out the disallowance as per the criteria decided by the Tribunal in assessee s own case in earlier years restricting it to the suomoto disallowance - HELD THAT:- Respectfully following the orders of the Tribunal for the earlier assessment years as well as the order of the Hon'ble High Court in assessee s own case [ 2019 (6) TMI 440 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] we hold that the computation as adopted by the assessee for disallowing expenditure attributable for earning exempt income u/s. 14A of the Act should be accepted. Thus, we see no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). - Decided against revenue.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1023
Levy of fees u/s. 234E - delay in filing Form No.26Q - passing the intimation u/s. 200A - scope od amendment - HELD THAT:- As decided in SRI. FATHERAJ SINGHVI AND OTHERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ 2016 (9) TMI 964 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] Amendment to section 200A(1) of the Act is prospective in nature and therefore the AO while processing the TDS statements/ returns in the present three appeals for the period prior to 01.06.20 15 was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Therefore, the intimations issued by the AO under section 200A of the Act in these appeals are unsustainable and the demand raised by way of charging of the fees under section 234E of the Act not being valid is deleted. In this view of the matter, we hold that the AO is not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act by way of intimations issued under section 200A of the Act in respect of defaults before 01.06.2015 - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1022
Disallowance of interest paid on unsecured loans taken from specified persons - Addition holding the same to be in excess of the fair market rate as per section 40A(2)(b) - Revenue restricting the same to 12% as against 18% claimed by the assessee - HELD THAT:- We find merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that its claim of 18% rate of interest, paid on unsecured loans taken from specified persons, as the market rate of interest was justified and hence allowable as per section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. None of the factual contentions of the assessee to justify its claim ,we find, have been rebutted by the Revenue. Assessee had justified its claim contending that unsecured loans stood on a totally different footing as compared to secured loan taken from banks, by way of the banks charging interest periodically resulting in compounding of interest and hence higher effective rate of interest ,of banks taking guarantee for the loans given, and charging insurance and processing charges for the same, all of which are not found in the case of unsecured loans taken from private parties, thus justifying a higher rate of interest as compared to banks/NBFC; that generally the rate of interest on unsecured loans is BPLR +2 to 4% and that in the impugned year the SBI BPLR was 14.5% and further that the assessee itself had paid interest @ 14.5% on a loan taken from an NBFC. It was also duly demonstrated that in the preceding year the AO had accepted 18% as the market rate of interest on unsecured loans after duly examining the issue during assessment proceedings.None of the aforesaid facts have been controverted either by the Ld.CIT(A) or by the Ld.DR before us. The disallowance of interest therefore made by restricting the rate of interest to 12% under section 40A(2)(b) is therefore directed to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1021
Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - HELD THAT:- As relying on assessee's own case [ 2016 (6) TMI 1391 - ITAT AHMEDABAD ] matter is set aside to the file of AO to examine the facts and figures of the case in the light of our observations made above in order to arrive at a final conclusion as to whether disallowance u/s 14A is to be made and if so, then the amount thereof which in no case should exceed the exempted income earned by assessee during the year under appeal. Nature of expenses - guarantee commission - DR contended that the fact whether such guarantee fees was paid with respect to the loan which was utilized for the capital working progress which was not put to usein the year under consideration is to be verified accordingly, if that be so, the amount of guarantee commission needs to be capitalized - HELD THAT:- As assessee did not prefer any appeal against the order of CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2008-09. Assessee was not aggrieved by the direction of CIT (A) to verify the claim of the assessee whether such guarantee fees relates to the capital work in progress for the AY 2008-09. But the assessee for the year under consideration has challenged the direction of CIT-A verify whether such guarantee fee relates to the capital working progress. As the assessee did not challenge such direction of CIT(A) for the assessment Year 2008-09 before the ITAT, it implies that such direction has reached to its finality for that assessment year. Therefore, there was no dispute for the ITAT for the AY 2008-09 for the direction issued by the Learned CIT(A). Accordingly, it cannot be inferred that the order of the Learned CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2008-09 has merged with the order of ITAT insofar the direction issued by CIT(A) to verify the claim of the assessee for the guarantee fees whether such fees relates to the capital work in progress. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the issue raised by the assessee is a covered issue by the order of the ITAT in the own case of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2008-09 as contended by the ld. AR for the assessee. Grounds of appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed. Disallowance on account of depreciation not eligible at the rate 60% being computers - As per the AO, the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation at the rate of 15% on the computerized plant and machinery and not 60% on the same - HELD THAT:- From the preceding discussion, there is no ambiguity that the Learned CIT (A) has decided the issue on hand after relying on the order of his predecessor for the Assessment Years 2008-09 which was subsequently set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication [ 2016 (6) TMI 1391 - ITAT AHMEDABAD ]. We are incline to set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law and in the light of the direction issued by the ITAT for the Assessment Year 2008-09 which is reproduced here in above. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes. Disallowance under the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D while determining the income under the provisions of MAT - HELD THAT:- Disallowances made under the provisions of Sec. 14A r.w.r. 8D of the IT Rules, cannot be applied to the provision of Sec. 115JB of the Act as per the direction in the case of CIT Vs. Jayshree Tea Industries Ltd. [ 2014 (11) TMI 1169 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT ]. We direct the AO to make the disallowance of 1% of the exempted income as discussed above under Clause (f) to Explanation-1 of Sec. 115JB of the Act. We also feel to bring this fact on record that we have restored other cases involving identical issues to the file of AO for making the disallowance as per the Clause (f) to Explanation-1 of Sec. 115JB of the Act independently. But now we note that there is no mechanism provided under the Clause (f) to Explanation-1 of Sec. 115JB of the Act to make the disallowance independently. Therefore, our action for restoring back the issue to the file of AO would unnecessarily cause further litigation. Thus,in the interest of justice and fair play we limit the disallowance on an ad-hoc basis @ 1 % of the exempted income as per the Clause (f) to Explanation-1 of Sec. 115JB of the Act. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Addition being 15% of the grant received by the assessee - HELD THAT:- Grants received cannot be treated as income of the assessee company. Treating the interest income - business income OR income from other sources - HELD THAT:- Revenue has failed to controvert the aforesaid contention and the findings of the ld. CIT(A),therefore after considering the material fact that interest earned on loan and advances from deposit placed with Mega Power Project towards its sharing of power and interest of UL pool account received from M/s. Power Grid Corporation India Ltd were directly related to the business of the assessee therefore, this ground of appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1020
Assessment u/s 153A - satisfaction note that the seized documents mentioned there in belonged not to the searched person, but, to the assessee - HELD THAT:- No satisfaction has been recorded in the file of the searched person that the seized documents belonged to the other party and do not belong to the searched person, therefore, no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue holding that the jurisdiction assumed under section 153C in the case of the assessee is not in accordance with law. We accordingly uphold the same and the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1019
TP Adjustment - Attribution of profits - purported PE as remunerated on an arm s length basis - whether no additional profits could be attributed to assessee s income - case of the assessee before us is that without prejudice to its contention on there being PE or dependent agent PE or not, when ESPN India is remunerated at arm s length basis then no further attribution of profits can be made in the hands of the assessee in India - HELD THAT:- Where once arm s length principle has been decided then, the Hon ble Supreme Court has laid down the proposition that there can be no further profit attribution to a person, even if, it has a PE in India - See Hon ble Supreme Court in Honda Motors Co. Ltd. vs ADIT[ 2018 (5) TMI 265 - SUPREME COURT] and M/S E-FUNDS IT SOLUTION INC. [ 2017 (10) TMI 1011 - SUPREME COURT]. The said proposition have been also followed in BBC Worldwide Limited [ 2016 (3) TMI 1025 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and it has been held that if arm s length remuneration is paid to the dependent agent, nothing further remains to be attributed. Whether ESPN India constitutes PE of the assessee in India under DTAA between India and Mauritius on the principle that ESPN India was remunerated at arm s length by the assessee, which has been accepted by the Assessing Officer/TPO of ESPN India and also the assessee, then no further attribution of profits is to be made in the hands of the assessee. Interest under section 234B - HELD THAT:- Since, the assessee is foreign company then no interest is to be charged under section 234B of the Act as entire income of the non-resident entity is subject to tax deduction at source. Accordingly, the assessee is not liable to pay any advance tax and consequently no liability to pay interest under section 234B of the Act. In this regard, we find support from the ratio laid down in DIT vs Jacabs Civil Inroporated/Mitsubishi Corporation [ 2010 (8) TMI 37 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and in DCIT vs NGC Network Asia LLC [ 2009 (1) TMI 174 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein held that when a duty is cast on the payer to deduct and pay the tax at source, on payer s failure to do so interest under section 234B of the Act cannot be imposed on payee assessee - Appeals of the assessee are allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1018
Revision u/s 263 - Short term capital gain computation - CIT-A directing the Assessing Officer to re-compute the income of the assessee after examining in detail, the claim made by the assessee in the form of cost of improvement - assessee in response to notice u/s. 153A filed return of income on 29.08.2013 for A.Y. 2008-09 admitting an income - HELD THAT:- Admittedly in this case no incriminating material was found in the search proceedings leading to disallowance of expenditure incurred on furniture and fittings. When there is no incriminating material found in the course of the search either originally when the search took place on 06.11.2007 or on 18.07.2012 whether addition/disallowance can be made based on the findings of the Ld. CIT in the proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act is the issue to be decided. In the assessee s case the Assessing Officer proposed to disallow the expenditure claimed by the assessee towards furniture and fittings and the Addl. CIT by order dated 31.12.2009 u/s. 153D accepted the claim of the assessee. From the above order of the Addl. CIT it can be seen that the claim of the assessee was accepted after examining the relevant documents, invoices etc., by making an observation that the claim made by the assessee with regard to allowance for renovation of interior work and furniture and fittings is acceptable based on these directions of the Addl. CIT u/s. 153D/144A the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s.143(3)/153A of the Act accepting the claim of the assessee. When once the Assessing Officer passed Assessment Order based on the directions of the Addl. CIT who has examined the issue with reference to the documents and evidences furnished by the assessee such Assessment Order cannot be held to be erroneous. The commissioner while passing the order u/s. 263 of the Act in fact made an observation that it can be inferred that the Range Head had failed to cause any enquiry in this regard blaming the Range Head for not conducting proper enquiry. CIT is inferring that Addl. CIT has not conducted proper enquiry. This is only an inference. The order passed by the Ld. Addl. CIT u/s. 153D clearly states that he has looked into the documents and annexures thereon and on satisfying himself of the evidences directed the Assessing Officer that the claim of the assessee is acceptable. Therefore, when the view taken by the Addl. CIT and the Assessing Officer can be accepted as one of the possible views, Assessment Order cannot be treated as erroneous even though some prejudice caused to the revenue. When the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3)/153A is not erroneous, the findings of the Ld.CIT(Central) in his order passed u/s. 263 has no relevance and such order of the Ld.CIT is not sustainable in law. Assessment u/s 153A - Legal proposition that addition/disallowance should be made based only on the materials seized/unearthed during the course of search proceedings. Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of expenditure incurred towards furniture and fittings and compute the income accordingly.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1017
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - additions u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- Since the additions on the basis of which the impugned penalty was sustained by the Ld.CIT(A) have already been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) / ITAT, as such the said additions which were the basis for levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not in existence, therefore, by respectfully following the ratio laid down in case of the K.C. Builders and Another Vs. Asst. CIT [ 2004 (1) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT ] impugned penalty sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is deleted.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1016
Addition u/s 69C of the Act on account of unexplained expenses incurred in foreign tour - HELD THAT:- A fair estimation has been made by him looking to the nature of expenditure which was incurred during foreign tour for both business and personal purpose. Thus no interference is called for in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) Ground No.1 of the Revenue s appeal is dismissed. Addition u/s 69B on account of unexplained jewellery - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has duly considered the permissible limits provided in the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 1916 dated 11.5.2014, ratios laid down by Hon ble Courts and considering the number of family members, has rightly deleted the addition for unexplained jewellery made by the Ld. A.O u/s 69C of the Act. We thus find no reason to interfere in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and confirm the same. Accordingly Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue stands dismissed. Addition for unexplained cash found at the assessee s residence during the course of search - HELD THAT:- We observe that looking to the consistent substantial taxable income offered by the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 to 2013-14 and withdrawals made, we are of the view that the cash found at assessee s residence is reasonable and explainable. We thus find no reason to interfere in the findings of Ld. CIT(A) and the same stands confirmed. Addition for unexplained opening balance of capital - HELD THAT:- Income shown in all these years has been offered to tax in the return of income and after subtracting the withdrawals for LIC premium, Income Tax, House loan interest and household expenses the resultant figure if cumulatively added and carry forward from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards till the Assessment Year 2014- 15 the opening capital balance would have been ₹ 2,05,33,295/-. Assessee has taken the opening capital balance of ₹ 1,79,22,599/- which is less than the cumulative fund shown by the assessee in the chart. We thus in the given facts and circumstances of the case are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the facts and deleted the addition as the assessee had duly explained the source of opening capital balance. Thus the finding of Ld. CIT(A) is confirmed and accordingly ground No.4 raised by the revenue stands dismissed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1015
Revision u/s 263 - Assessment u/s 153A - As per CIT no enquiry/verification was conducted by Ld.AO, in respect of expenditure incurred in cash and applicability of provisions of section 40A(3) - HELD THAT:- Applicability of principle of merger do not arise since Ld.AO had not considered the issue of expenditure made in cash by assessee and applicability of section 40A (3) of the Act u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A. On an appeal by assessee before Ld.CIT (A), we note that assessee challenged only disallowances made by Ld.AO, under the head capital gains. CIT on perusal of assessment records held that Ld.AO, did not make any inquiries or called for any information/evidences in respect of such huge expenditure in cash, and that assessment order; do not reveal that, Ld.AO considered all aspects of the case, including huge expenditure incurred by assessee in cash. Even before us, Ld.AR could not establish the fact that, any query was raised and/or enquiries conducted by way of documentary evidences on this aspect. AO failed to apply his mind to this issue and therefore order passed by him was erroneous in sofar as it was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Pr.CIT and the same is upheld. - Decided against assessee.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1014
Shortage of stock as sales outside the books and applying GP Rate thereon - HELD THAT:- CIT (A)'s reasoning for treating it as sale to M/s PBR Agro, we find, is patently absurd. Merely because the payment has been received in lieu of stock, does not make it sale consideration. There is a huge difference between sale consideration and compensation and the two cannot be equated. And the assesseee having proved with evidence that the shortage in stock was on account of misappropriation by M/s PBR Agro Industries and the revenue not having brought before us any evidence to the contrary to controvert this explanation of the assessee, the payment cannot be said to be on account of sale. Hold the explanation of the assessee for the shortage of stock to be bonafide and direct the deletion of addition made to the income of the assessee by treating the shortage of stock as sales outside the books and applying GP Rate thereon. Addition on account of cash found short by invoking the provisions of Section 68 and also holding that the same to be taxed u/s 115BBE - addition made to the income of the assessee on account of cash found short with the assessee - HELD THAT:- Cash short, at the most represents expenses / outgoings out of cash available with the assessee not accounted for in the books of the assessee. Such unaccounted expenses are sourced from cash available with the assessee. How therefore can they be treated or deemed to be income of the assessee u/s 69/69B/69C of the Act when the said sections deem investments/money, the source of which the assessee offers no explanation about, as income of the assessee . We therefore hold that there is no case for making any addition on account of cash found short with the assessee and the addition is directed to be deleted. - Appeal of the Assessee is allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1013
Eligibility for exemption u/s 11 - Denial of exemption as assessee was not actual carrying on activities for the advancement of objects of general public utility - intent of amendment in 2(15) by relying on the objects of the assessee - Addition on account of disallowance of donation amounting and disallowance of service Tax paid - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee's own case Assessing Officer has not indicated any facts which indicate that the assessee deviated from this principle. He has merely referred the extent of profit making activities without correlating the same to the other activities of the trust. In our view, therefore, the order of the Tribunal must be upheld. As decided in JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [ 2013 (11) TMI 1578 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT ] Section 2(15) and the corresponding sections including Sections 11, 12, 12A and 12AA are independent of Section 10(20A) of the Act. Upon the omission of Section 10(20A), the provisions of the other sections were not affected. They remained intact. An assessee could have been entitled to the provisions of Section 10(20A) and the other provisions simultaneously. The omission of one, however, does not affect the validity or the existence of the others. The two provisions are distinct and independent of each other. Thus the omission of Section 10(20A) did not affect the rights of the parties claiming the benefit of Sections 2(15), 11, 12, 12A and 12AA of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1012
Addition of sale of agriculture land as capital asset - HELD THAT:- In the present case it appears that the new evidence furnished by the assessee vide application dt. 10/08/2020, in the form a certificate issued by the Land Revenue Officer, goes to the root of the matter and very relevant to decide the present controversy. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the same is admitted. However, the said certificate was not available either to the A.O. or the Ld. CIT(A), we, therefore deem it appropriate to set aside the present case back to the file of the A.O. to be decided afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also by considering the new evidence, now furnished by the assessee.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1011
Revision u/s 263 - Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D and applicability of Section 115JB - In computing the book profits u/s 115JB profits of foreign branches was wrongly excluded and certain provisions were omitted to be added back, deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) in respect of bad debts written off was incorrectly allowed and disallowance made as per Rule 8D was not considered in computing the book profits - HELD THAT:- Issue of applicability of book profits to the nationalised banks was agitated by the assessee before the CIT(A) and CIT(A) has already passed an order on 21.06.2017 in favour of the assessee that the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act does not apply to the assessee - in the show cause notice, similar issue was raised by ld. PCIT and passed an order on 27.03.2018, therefore, in our considered view, ld. PCIT cannot invoke the provisions of Section 263 of the Act in this matter. With regard to issue of deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Act, assessee has filed detailed submissions before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer has considered the submissions even though he has not discussed it in his order under Section 143(3) -material submitted before us clearly indicate that assessee has made elaborate submissions on this issue and the Assessing Officer has satisfied himself that assessee is eligible to claim deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) and, therefore, in our considered view, ld. PCIT cannot form another view on the same issue in which the Assessing Officer has already satisfied himself and passed an order which clearly indicates that the Assessing Officer has verified and investigated the matter in detail. Even in this issue, the provisions of Section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked. With regard to the third issue raised in the show cause notice, i.e. disallowance under Rule 8D which was not considered in computing the book profits, we notice that the ld. PCIT himself dropped this issue and has not directed any revision to the Assessing Officer. Issues raised in the show cause notice issued under Section 263 of the Act do not survive. Therefore, in our considered view, the order passed under Section 263 of the Act deserves to be quashed. Large international transactions during this year - AO failed to refer this case to the TPO - In this case,the transactions undertaken by the assessee are domestic as well as international transactions and the issues involving domestic and corporate issues were already verified by the Assessing Officer and also the order of ld. CIT(A) merged with the assessment order, therefore, in our considered view, the Assessing Officer should have referred the international transactions to the TPO to verify the international transactions whether the transaction are at arm s length. Since the Assessing Officer failed to follow the due procedure, and the fact that the Revenue Department created specialized cell to deal with the complicated and complex issues arising out of transfer pricing mechanism, the assessment by this special officer (TPO) is an additional assessment of ALP of international transactions and it can be assessed separately without disturbing the regular assessment carried out by Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) - we are retaining the directions of ld. PCIT in his order relevant only to reference to TPO with a further direction to the Assessing Officer to refer the case to TPO and any adjustment recommended by the TPO alone may be assessed separately and merge the same in the draft assessment order if there is any adjustment to be made, it may be assessed to tax as per law. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1010
Deduction claimed u/s. 80P invoking his powers u/s. 154 - deduction in the return of income which the assessee had complied while responding to notice issued u/s. 148 - HELD THAT:- Section 80A(5) does not stipulate that the return of income should be filed within the due date prescribed u/s.139(1) (4) of the Act. No other provisions of the Act which bars the claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act if the return of income is not filed within the due date as provided u/s. 139(1) (4). DR also could not successfully controvert to the submission of the ld. AR. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the order passed by the Ld. AO invoking his powers U/s. 154 of the Act, withdrawing the claim of deduction U/s. 80P of the Act in the case of the assessee for both the AYs. Since the ld. CIT (A) has also agreed with the same view of the ld. AO, his orders are also devoid of merits. For the aforestated reasons, we hereby set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT (A) and direct the ld. AO to grant deduction u/s. 80P of the Act to the assessee for both the AYs. Accordingly, both the appeals of the assessee are held in its favour.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1009
Disallowance of special adhesive stamps expenses affixed on conveyance deed for assignment of business - assessee had stated that the same was in connection with acquisition of business and was claimed as revenue expenditure - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) s conclusion that the expenditure is to cure and complete the title to capital is without appreciating the facts of the case. This assignment is admittedly for facilitating the business of the assessee by assigning receivables and as the assessee has acquired the said industrial unit for a lump sum consideration. The expenditure is in connection with facilitating recovery of receivables which is a part of current asset. Hence the expenditure in this regard cannot be said to be in the capital filed of acquiring business. It is in fact for facilitating the business of the assessee and in this view of the matter expenditure is allowable as business expenditure. The case laws referred by assessee in the case of Bombay Dyeing Mfg. [ 1996 (2) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT] and India Cements Ltd. [ 1965 (12) TMI 22 - SUPREME COURT ] are accordingly germane and support the case of the assessee. Provision for warranty claimed as expenditure - claim denied by AO on the ground that it is an unascertained liability and a contingent liability - CIT(A) in principal upheld the action of the Assessing Officer but directed that only the provision made during the year should be disallowed - HELD THAT:- We find that the authorities below have erred in considering the provisions of warranty as contingent liability. As already submitted by learned Counsel of the assessee in assessee s own case, subsequently revenue authorities have allowed the expenditure on the basis of Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. case [ 2009 (5) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT ]. Depreciation in respect of customer contracts - Assessee had claimed that the customer contracts are valuable right and therefore capital asset - HELD THAT:- In the case of Areva T D India Ltd. Vs. CIT [ 2012 (4) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] has held that excess amount paid over and above tangible asset for acquisition of various business and commercial rights and slump sale can be categorised under the goodwill and difference between purchase consideration and value of tangible asset taken over being the balancing figure was held to be goodwill and depreciation thereon was held to be allowable on the touchstone of decision of Techno Shares and Stocks Ltd [ 2010 (9) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT] . The details of value of tangible assets taken over by the assessee by the slump sale agreement are necessary to be considered for adjudication of this issue. Hence, in our considered opinion the issue of depreciation of goodwill and customer contracts being an intangible asset claimed in this case by the assessee needs to be examined by the Assessing Officer on the touchstone of the aforesaid decision. Accordingly the issue of depreciation of customer contracts and goodwill is remitted to the file of the AO.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1008
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - validity of reasons recorded for issuing notice u/s 148 - Additions on the basis of fishing and roving enquiry - bogus purchases - whether AO made fishing enquiries about matters not related to the reasons recorded for issuing notice u/s 148 - HELD THAT:- Since, the Ld. CIT (A) has held in principle that the AO has made fishing enquiry in the course of reassessment proceedings and allowed the legal ground raised by the assessee for statistical purposes and since the department has not challenged the findings of the Ld. CIT (A), in our considered view, the addition made by the AO except the addition made on account of bogus purchases which was the subject matter of reassessment, are not sustainable. Once, it is established that the AO has made fishing and roving enquiry, the additions made as a result of such enquiry cannot be confirmed. Hence, we allow the legal ground raised by the assessee and delete all the additions sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) except the addition made on account of bogus purchases. Bogus purchases - assessee had purchased the material from grey market and evaded the applicable taxes. Therefore, addition to the extent of profit earned from such transaction and the applicable taxes evaded by the assessee is required to be made. In CIT vs. Simit P. Seth [ 2013 (10) TMI 1028 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has upheld the decision of the Tribunal and sustained the addition 12.5% of the total bogus purchases shown by the assessee holding that only profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to income of the assessee. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1007
Unsecured Loans - Additions based on documentary strength impounded during the survey u/s 133A - case was selected for scrutiny through CASS - CIT (A) has deleted the addition which were based on such material on the grounds that no separate addition is warranted when the profits of the assessee are estimated taken into consideration the gross profit of the year - HELD THAT:- We find from the paper book, the relevant documents proving identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the loaners. We find that al l the bank statements of the loan parties have been duly submitted before the AO. The revenue has not disputed the presence of the primary documents before CIT (A) at this juncture. Hence, it can be held that the assessee has discharged the primary onus to prove the loans whereas the revenue has not acted upon such evidences filed by the assessee to bring anything contra. The addition has been made without conducting any enquiry on the grounds that the assessee has not filed the primary documents necessary to prove the genuineness of the loans, the observation of which, we find contrary to the facts on record. Hence, the addition made on account of the loans from the above parties is directed to be deleted. Disallowance of Interest - AO held that the assessee has advanced lons to various parties and no interest has been received - AO calculated interest @ 12% on these advances and disallowed an amount and deducted the same from the interest expenses paid - HELD THAT:- The total expenditure on account of interest claimed by the assessee was ₹ 30,41,080/- out of which an amount of ₹ 24,56,648/- has been paid to the bank on account of the CC limitrised. The remaining amount of ₹ 5,84,432/- has been paid nearly to 25 outstanding unsecured loan parties. Hence, it cannot be said that the amount debited on account of interest hasn t been utilized for business purpose. The notional interest calculated on the advances given is without any legal basis and hence hereby directed to be deleted. Undisclosed Investment - HELD THAT:- In tune with the accounting procedure and as per the impounded document, the interest @3% p.a. stands accrued to the assessee on the advance of ₹ 65,23,720/- which the assessee omitted to show as interest receipt. Hence, we confirm interest @ 3% on the principle amount of ₹ 65,23,720/-. The principle amount of ₹ 65,23,720/- stands reflected in the name of M/s S.K. Traders, in the regular books of accounts of the assessee, hence, we hold that no addition of this amount is required. Unexplained investment based on the impounded material - HELD THAT:- No mention of statement recorded at the time of survey either on the assessment order or in the order of the ld. CIT (A). No statement recorded at the time of the survey has been produced even before us as to what the transactions pertain to. No enquiries have been conducted by the revenue to substantiate to unexplained investments. The figures pertaining to three different years cannot be brought to taxation without proving as to what type of transactions the document signifies. Hence, in the absence of any primary, secondary or corroborative evidences, no addition can be made based on the impounded document. The revenue could not even prove with certainty to whom the document belongs nor tested the hand writing on the document either by the way of statement or by the way of forensics. Hence, keeping in view the entire gamut of events peculiar to the facts of this case, we hereby hold that no addition is warranted in the hands of the assessee for the instant year. Addition on account of estimation of GP - HELD THAT:- Having heard the arguments and keeping in view the market averages, the GP is reduced to 25% from 35% on the sale of scrap and from 15% to 10% on the sale of other electronic goods. The AO is hereby directed to re-compute the taxable income taking into consideration the revised GP rate.
-
Customs
-
2020 (10) TMI 1006
Grant of Anticipatory Bail/pre-arrest Bail - Smuggling - Gold - Cash - Section 135 of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- Considering all the facts and also the fact that the granting of bail to accused 1 and 2 has not been challenged by the Customs Department and has now become final, there is no point in the applicant being incarcerated for the purpose of investigation as long as he is willing to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail. The bail application is allowed - the applicant is directed to surrender before the Customs Department in pursuance of Section 108 notice, which he has received and cooperate with the investigation and he shall be subjected to such interrogation keeping in view his health condition as evidenced by Annexures 19 to 21. In the event of his being arrested, he shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for ₹ 1,00,000/-, with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following conditions.
-
Central Excise
-
2020 (10) TMI 1005
CENVAT Credit - input services - marine insurance services provided by the insurance companies - place of removal - HELD THAT:- All services received by the manufacturer directly or indirectly in relation to the manufacture of final products upto the place of removal are admissible for availment of Cenvat Credit on the Service Tax paid for such services. The goods are being cleared by the appellants to their buyers on FOR basis and all liabilities in respect of transportation of goods or even damage to goods were on account of the appellants/manufacturer. It is the appellants who were liable for safe delivery of goods up to their customer‟s door steps. The impugned service of marine insurance was taken to cover the risk of transportation of goods. Thus, present becomes the case were the service of insurance of goods to be supplied to buyers at their door steps under FOR delivery system was taken. These admitted facts are sufficient to hold that the sale in the present case gets complete only at the door steps of buyers. It becomes clear that when the goods are cleared on FOR basis the freight paid on outward transportation would definitely qualify as input service, and thus shall be admissible for Cenvat. Thus, the marine insurance services were availed by the appellant-manufacturer when the property in goods was still retained with him, the delivery being on FOR basis. Hence, the opinion formed by the adjudicating authority below for the impugned marine services to not to be included under input services are absolutely wrong - the plea that general insurance services fall under the exclusion clause is also not appropriate to the given facts and circumstances for the reason that the general insurance services only with respect to motor vehicles are covered under the exclusion part of the definition of input services. The impugned goods are not being motor vehicles. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1004
Maintainability of appeal - monetary amount involved in the appeal - HELD THAT:- The amount involved in the present case is below the monetary limit of ₹ 50.00 Lakhs which has been notified vide Board s Instruction being F.No.390/Misc/116/2017-JC dated 22 August 2019 - the appeal is dismissed under National Litigation Policy.
-
CST, VAT & Sales Tax
-
2020 (10) TMI 1003
Stay on Attachment of Bank Account of petitioner - taxability of Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA) and Rectified Spirit - levy of VAT or GST? - HELD THAT:- As an interim measure that the impugned notice dated 30th September, 2020 provisionally attaching the bank account of the petitioner shall be stayed subject to petitioner furnishing bank guarantee of a nationalized bank to the extent of 50% of the differential amount i.e., the difference between the amount of GST paid and the amount of VAT quantified, to respondent No.2 within three weeks from today. Stand over to 3rd December, 2020 for further consideration.
|
