Search Results For: 254


Midas Polymer Compounds vs. ACIT (ITAT Cochin)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 25, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 13, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 253: Delay of 2819 days in filing the appeal caused by the fault of CA/ Counsel has to be condoned. the expression “sufficient cause” should be interpreted to advance substantial justice. If there is "sufficient cause", the period of delay cannot be regarded as excessive or inordinate (All judgements considered)

Under the scheme of Constitution, the Government cannot retain even a single pie of the individual citizen as tax, when it is not authorised by an authority of law. Therefore, if we refuse to condone the delay, that would amount to legalise an illegal and unconstitutional order passed by the lower authority. Therefore, in our opinion, by preferring the substantial justice, the delay of 2819 days has to be condoned

Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Cochin)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 8, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 13, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2013-14, 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 253 Condonation of delay: An assessee supported by large number of CAs & Advocates cannot seek condonation of delay on the ground that the officer handling the issue was transferred. A party cannot sleep over its rights and expect its appeal to be entertained. The fact that the issue on merits is covered in favour of the assessee makes no difference to the aspect of condonation of delay

The assessee is a scheduled bank supported by a large number of personnel and also assisted by qualified Chartered Accountants and Advocates. The reason as come out from the condonation petitions filed by the assessee, as stated earlier, is that there was transfer of the officer who was handling the issue. We cannot accept such proposition as it cannot be considered as good and sufficient reason to condone the delay. It was submitted that the delay is to be condoned since the issue on merit covered in favour of the assessee. This submission ignores the fact that the object of the law of limitation is to bring certainty and finality to litigation

ITO vs. Mohanraj Trading & Exchange (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: July 2, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 3, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 250/ 254: If a decision is challenged by the assessee both on the issue of jurisdiction as well as on merits, the appellate authority has to decide both issues. He cannot decline to decide one of the issues on the basis that the decision on the other issue renders it academic. This approach leads to multiplication of proceedings and leads to delay

Examining the present case on the touchstone of above said case law, we find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) here directly falls under the ambit of Hon’ble High Court’s order as above. The ld. CIT(A) has decided one issue and has left undecided another issues duly raised before him. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that these issues relating to validity of reopening were duly raised, which have been left undecided by the ld. CIT(A) and need to be remitted to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) is directed to complete his appellate order by deciding on these issues regarding the validity of reopening which were duly raised before him by the assessee

Omni Lens Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 16, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 26, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 254/ 36(1)(vii): If the AO has failed to discharge his obligation to conduct a proper inquiry, it is the obligation of the ITAT to ensure that effective inquiry is carried out. The AO has not examined the crucial aspect whether the bad debts claimed by the assessee due to the NSEL scam constitutes a "speculative transaction" u/s 43(5) and whether Explanation to s. 73(1) applies

A perusal of the order of the lower authorities gives an infallible impression that such crucial aspect has not been addressed. Without understanding the fate of the goods purchased purportedly in the custody of or on behalf of the assessee, it will not be possible to determine the issue. Where the purchase with delivery is settled by cross contract of sale with delivery at future date against sale proceeds, the entire debt turning bad is rather innocuous

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. CST (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 13, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 15, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 254: While deciding an application for stay of demand, the Appellate Tribunal can only consider the prima facie case of merits. It cannot give a final finding on the merits and decide the appeal itself

The approach of the Appellate Tribunal is completely erroneous. What was heard before the Appellate Tribunal was the application for stay. There was no occasion for the Appellate Tribunal to go into the merits and decide the appeal itself by holding that it was devoid of any merits

ITO (Exemptions) vs. Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Association (ITAT Chandigarh)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 6, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 10, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2013-14
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Strictures passed against the Dept for confronting, showing resentment and displeasure to the Tribunal for granting interim stay against recovery of demand. The Dept is showing open defiance of, disrespect of, or of open resentment to, orders of the Tribunal, which may prove be very dangerous for the sanctity of the courts of law/Justice dispensation system of the country. Costs imposed on dept

The crux of our above discussion is that the department officials fully knowing that no useful purpose will be served either by moving the present application and even knowing that the present application was infructuous and non-maintainable even on the date of its filing, not only filed this application, but also insisted for arguments despite that the hearing on the main appeal had already been concluded on a previous date. The only motive behind this application is to confront and show resentment and displeasure to this Tribunal for granting interim stay against recovery in this matter. The wording of the opening part of the application for vacation of stay clearly reveals that the Department is showing her resentment not only about the passing of ex-parte interim stay order but also towards the directions of the Tribunal for directing her to refund the amount illegally recovered

The Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 27, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 5, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2015-16
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Tax Recovery: CBDT should investigate arm twisting measures, dehors application of the law, adopted by the Revenue for recovery of tax and take corrective measures to ensure AOs are not overzealous in recovering maximum revenue before 31st March. Once the CIT(A) concludes hearing the appeal, the stay application becomes infructuous. The exercise by CIT(A) of taking up the stay application, after the appeal was heard, was only done so as to collect some revenue before 31st March, 2018. This is certainly not expected of an Appellate Authority who adjudicates disputes between the Revenue and the Assessee on a regular basis. The CIT(A) must not only be fair but appear to be so, in a country governed by Rule of law.

It would be best if the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) carry out the necessary investigation on the above allegations and if there is truth in it, it would take corrective action on the same. This is particularly because this conduct alleged on the part of the CIT(A) and the office of the CIT[E] appears to us to be an aberration, as normally we have noted that the officers Revenue do administer the Act with fairness and with loyalty to the Act. Therefore if the allegation in the petition are correct, then such failures on the part of its Officers needs to be corrected by the CBDT before it becomes the norm. Failing corrective measures by the CBDT, would only result in our entertaining petitions from orders under the Act as the alternative remedy would cease to be an efficacious remedy, if such arm twisting measures dehors application of the law, are adopted by the Revenue. We therefore direct the CBDT to carry out necessary investigation on the allegations made in the petition and if found correct, to take corrective measures to ensure that its Officers shall not be overzealous in seeking to recover maximum revenue before 31st March of any financial year, in total disregard of the law

M/s Sainath Enterprises vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) (Third Member)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 18, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 25, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Withdrawal of appeal: The Petitioner/ Plaintiff is the ‘dominus litis’ and it is open to him to pursue or abandon his case. Withdrawal cannot be denied except when the person making the prayer has obtained some advantage/ benefit which he seeks to retain

Withdrawal of appeal: The Petitioner/ Plaintiff is the ‘dominus litis’ and it is open to him to pursue or abandon his case. Withdrawal cannot be denied except when the person making the prayer has obtained some advantage/ benefit which he seeks to retain

Thyrocare Technologies Limited vs. ITO (TDS) (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 11, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 29, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
High Court states that it is “most unhappy” with the manner in which the Tribunal has decided the appeal. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO without any discussion as to why the order of the CIT(A) is perverse or is contrary to law. It also did not pint out infirmities or errors of fact and law in the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal failed to perform its duty of rendering a complete decision. It is obliged in law to examine the matter and reappraise and reappreciate all the factual materials

There is absolutely no discussion of the law and why the coordinate Bench decision rendered at Delhi is either distinguishable on facts or inapplicable. There is no discussion, much less any finding and conclusion that the order of the First Appellate Authority is perverse or is contrary to law. There are no infirmities, much less serious errors of fact and law noted by the Tribunal in the order of the Commissioner, which the Tribunal is obliged to and which order is therefore interfered by the Tribunal. Why the Tribunal feels it is its duty and obligation to interfere with the order of the First Appellate Authority, therefore, should be indicated with clarity. We have also not seen a reference to any communication or to any document which would indicate that the six queries raised by the Tribunal on the assessee have not been answered, much less satisfactorily. The Tribunal should have, independent of the statements, referred to such of the materials on record which would disclose that the assessee has entered into such arrangements so as to avoid the obligation to deduct the tax at source. If the arrangements are sham, bogus or dubious, then such a finding should have been rendered. Therefore, we are most unhappy with the manner in which the Tribunal has decided these Appeals. We have no alternative but to set aside such order and when the last fact finding authority misdirects itself totally in law. It fails to perform its duty. It has also not rendered a complete decision. Once the Tribunal was obliged in law to examine the matter and reappraise and reappreciate all the factual materials, then it should have performed that duty satisfactorily and in terms of the powers conferred by law

Ultratech Cement Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: April 18, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 21, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
An additional ground (relating to claim u/s 80-IA) cannot be permitted to be raised if the necessary evidence that the assessee is entitled to the claim is not on record. The fact that claim has been allowed by the AO in a subsequent year and that there is no reason why the claim should not be allowed in the present year is irrelevant. Also, the assessee must satisfy the appellate authority that the ground now raised was bona fide and the same could not have been raised earlier for good reasons

We note that it is an undisputed position before us that for the subject assessment year, the appellant assessee had not claimed benefit of Section 80IA of the Act in respect of its Jetty / Port either before the Assessing Officer or before the CIT(A). A claim for benefit under Section 80IA of the Act can only be made if the infrastructure facility such as Jetty / Port is, among other things, being run on the basis of an agreement for either developing or operating and maintaining or developing, operating and maintaining a new infrastructure facility. The sine qua non provided in SubSection (7) of Section 80IA of the Act is the furnishing along with its Return of Income, a report of audited accounts in Form 10CCB as required under Rule 18BBB(3) of the Act. The Form 10CCB which is required to be filed along with Return of Income has various details to be filled in, including the initial assessment year from which the deduction is being claimed, the nature of the activity carried out with regard to the infrastructure facility, namely, whether it is for developing or developing and operating or for developing, operating and maintaining the new infrastructure facility. It is only on examination of those details as submitted by the auditor in Form 10CCB that the claim of deduction can be considered. It is undisputed that for the subject assessment year, no Form 10CCB has been filed by the appellant assessee. Therefore, there is no evidence on record for subject assessment year to allow the claim. The submission of Mr.Agrawal for the appellant that primary evidence in the form of jetty is on record is not acceptable. Mere ownership or existence of jetty is not evidence of eligibility to the benefit of Section 80IA of the Act, which is admittedly conditional upon satisfaction of certain requirements as provided therein

Top