"The selected files type does not match its extension"

❯

❯❯

0 / 200

Expand Note

Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

NOTE:

Open Link

Case Laws

All › "The selected files type does not match its extension"

Showing Results for :

Reset Filters

Results Found:

Page of 12

Press 'Enter' after typing page number.

101 to 120 of 231 Results

Show AI Text Quick Glance by AI Headnote

2019 (8) TMI 111 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT Income Tax

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Issues Involved:
1. Breach of principles of natural justice.
2. Incorrect deduction of tax at source under Section 194C instead of Section 194J of the Income Tax Act.
3. Availability of an alternative statutory appellate remedy.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Breach of Principles of Natural Justice:
The Petitioner, a Private Limited Company, challenged the orders passed by the Income Tax Officer (TDS) on the grounds of breach of principles of natural justice. The core argument was that the Income Tax Officer (TDS) conducted extensive research on the nature of services provided by the Petitioner and the payments made to various agencies but did not share this research with the Petitioner, thereby denying them a fair hearing. The court noted that the Income Tax Officer (TDS) had referred to in-depth research on how digital advertising platforms like Google and Facebook operate, but there was no indication that this information was shared with the Petitioner before the final orders were passed. The court concluded that the failure to share this material with the Petitioner amounted to a breach of natural justice, as it denied the Petitioner an opportunity to rebut the findings.

2. Incorrect Deduction of Tax at Source:
The central dispute was whether the Petitioner should have deducted tax at source under Section 194C (payments to contractors) or under Section 194J (professional or technical services) of the Income Tax Act. The Income Tax Officer (TDS) argued that the services availed by the Petitioner were technical in nature and thus should have been subjected to tax deduction under Section 194J. The Petitioner contended that their deductions under Section 194C were appropriate. The court noted that the Income Tax Officer (TDS) had conducted substantial research into the nature of digital advertising services and concluded that these were technical services. However, this conclusion was reached without giving the Petitioner an opportunity to respond to the research findings, which was a procedural lapse.

3. Availability of Alternative Statutory Appellate Remedy:
The department argued that the Petitioner should have pursued the alternative statutory appellate remedy available instead of directly filing a writ petition. The court addressed this by stating that if there has been a breach of principles of natural justice resulting in a miscarriage of justice, the court is justified in bypassing the statutory appeal remedy and entertaining the writ petition directly. The court found that the breach of natural justice in this case warranted such an approach.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned orders on the grounds of breach of principles of natural justice. The orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Income Tax Officer (TDS) for fresh consideration. The Petitioner was given six weeks to make a representation along with the desired material before the said authority. The Income Tax Officer (TDS) was directed to take this representation into consideration before passing final orders. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

Orders under section 201(1)/201(1A) quashed for breach of natural justice: taxpayer not given material from Google/Facebook research
HC quashed the TDS assessment orders passed u/s 201(1)/201(1A) against the taxpayer for failure to adhere to principles of natural justice. The court held that while the ITO's independent research into Google/Facebook advertising was not objectionable per se, the material gathered had to be shared with the taxpayer to afford an opportunity to rebut; absence of such disclosure rendered the orders unsustainable. The composite orders were quashed in entirety and the petition disposed of, without expressing view on minor disputed payment elements.

Breach of principles of natural justice - tax deduction at source - classification under Section 194C versus Section 194J - availability of alternate statutory appellate remedy - quashing of orders and remand for fresh considerationBreach of principles of natural justice - availability of alternate statutory appellate remedy - Whether the impugned TDS orders could be challenged by writ despite the existence of an appellate remedy, on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice resulting in miscarriage of justice. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the material in the impugned orders and the Affidavits in Reply and found that the Income Tax Officer (TDS) had conducted extensive independent research (including material from web sources) and relied upon that research in reaching the conclusion that payments to web portals constituted technical services. That research and material were not shown to have been shared with the Petitioner prior to passing the final orders, depriving the Petitioner of an opportunity to rebut or explain the very material on which adverse findings were founded. The Court rejected the Department's contention that the Petitioner's familiarity with the business rendered sharing unnecessary, noting that assuming such knowledge would defeat the requirement of a fair hearing. Where a breach of principles of natural justice results in a real miscarriage, the Court is justified in bypassing the statutory appellate remedy and entertaining a writ petition. Applying that principle, the Court concluded that the impugned composite orders could not stand. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 14, 15]Impugned orders quashed for breach of principles of natural justice; writ entertained notwithstanding the availability of an appellate remedy.Quashing of orders and remand for fresh consideration - tax deduction at source - classification under Section 194C versus Section 194J - The procedural consequence to follow after quashing: whether the matter should be remitted for fresh consideration and the manner in which the Petitioner may place material before the authority. - HELD THAT: - The Court set aside the impugned orders in their entirety and directed that the entire issue be placed back before the Income Tax Officer (TDS) for fresh consideration. Given that the impugned orders themselves incorporate the material the Officer intended to rely upon, the Court held there was no need for the Officer to separately re adduce that same material; however, the Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to make a representation and place desired material before the Officer within six weeks. The Officer is required to take such representation into account before passing fresh final orders. The Court declined to express any opinion on the substantive question of whether payments fall under Section 194C or Section 194J, or on the smaller element of non deduction asserted as non accrued, leaving those issues open for decision on reconsideration. [Paras 15, 16, 17]Orders set aside and matter remitted to the Income Tax Officer (TDS) for fresh consideration; Petitioner permitted six weeks to file representations for consideration prior to final orders.Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed: the impugned TDS orders for AY 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 were quashed for breach of natural justice and the matter remitted to the Income Tax Officer (TDS) for fresh consideration, with the Petitioner granted six weeks to file representations to be considered before passing final orders.

2019 (7) TMI 1663 - ITAT DELHI Income Tax

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Tribunal Directs Adjustments & Verifications, Upholds Deduction, Rejects Comparables
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing adjustments and verifications. It upheld the deduction u/s 10A, rejected certain comparables for functional dissimilarity, abnormal revenue fluctuations, and lack of segmental data, and directed reconsideration of others based on functional similarity. It ruled no separate adjustment for interest receivables if working capital adjustment is granted and rectified the error in interchanging operating profit/operating cost margins. The Tribunal also instructed verification and allowance of TDS credit as claimed by the assessee.

Transfer pricing comparability - arm's length price - TNMM and PLI benchmarking - functional analysis (FAR) - limited risk back office / ITeS characterization - exclusion of comparables for extraordinary events/distorted profitability - use of quarterly results for comparables with different year end - deduction under Section 10A of the Income tax Act - working capital adjustment versus interest on trade creditFunctional analysis (FAR) - limited risk back office / ITeS characterization - Characterisation of the assessee's services for transfer pricing purposes - HELD THAT: - On examination of the assessee's FAR and having regard to earlier Tribunal findings in the assessee's own case for earlier years, the Tribunal held that the assessee performs back office operations (business process/ITeS) in a limited risk environment and not Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO). The Tribunal found no material change in functions, risks or assets as compared to prior years and therefore applied the earlier conclusion to the year under appeal. [Paras 12]Services rendered by the assessee are back office ITeS in a limited risk profile and not KPO.Transfer pricing comparability - exclusion of comparables for extraordinary events/distorted profitability - TNMM and PLI benchmarking - Inclusion/exclusion of specific comparable entities in benchmarking the international transaction - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal analysed the functional profiles and financial events of the disputed comparables. eClerx Services Ltd. was held functionally dissimilar (KPO profile, different asset and risk structure, no segmental data) and therefore excluded. Infosys BPO Ltd., Accentia Technologies Ltd., TCS e Serve Ltd. and TCS e Serve International Ltd. were excluded because extraordinary corporate events and diversified/segmental activity in the relevant year distorted their profitability, making them unsuitable as comparables. The Tribunal applied precedent and prior coordinate bench and High Court rulings endorsing exclusion where extraordinary events materially affect comparability. [Paras 16, 18, 19, 28]EClerx, Infosys BPO, Accentia Technologies, TCS e Serve Ltd. and TCS e Serve International Ltd. are not suitable comparables and are to be excluded.Use of quarterly results for comparables with different year end - Whether R. Systems International Ltd. (different financial year end) is a usable comparable - HELD THAT: - Rejection of R. Systems was based only on its different financial year end and not on any functional dissimilarity. Relying on Tribunal precedent, where quarterly results in the public domain can be used to derive proportionate figures, the Tribunal directed the TPO/AO to consider quarterly results and compute proportionate margins accordingly. The matter was remitted to the TPO/AO for compliance with this direction. [Paras 30, 31]R. Systems International Ltd. to be reconsidered as a comparable; matter remanded to TPO/AO to compute proportionate margins from quarterly results.Transfer pricing comparability - Whether CG Vak Software Exports Ltd., Informed Technologies Ltd. and Microgenetics Systems Ltd. are acceptable comparables - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined the financials and segmental disclosures. In absence of functional dissimilarity, the turnover filter was held not to be a valid ground to reject a functionally comparable entity. Applying earlier Tribunal and High Court authority, the Tribunal directed the TPO to include CG Vak Software, Informed Technologies and Microgenetics Systems as comparables for benchmarking. [Paras 32, 34, 35, 36]CG Vak Software, Informed Technologies and Microgenetics Systems to be included as comparables for benchmarking.Working capital adjustment versus interest on trade credit - Validity of charging interest for credit period under normal trade practices - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that where an appropriate working capital adjustment is granted in transfer pricing benchmarking, a separate adjustment charging interest on trade credit is not required. The Tribunal relied on precedent to support that duplicative interest adjustments should not be made in addition to working capital adjustments. [Paras 37]No separate interest adjustment on credit period is required if working capital adjustment is granted.Transfer pricing benchmarking - Correction of inadvertent interchange of operating profit / operating cost margins for certain comparables - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that the interchanging of margins for eClerx Services Ltd. and Omega Healthcare Management Services P. Ltd. was an inadvertent mistake in computation rather than an adjudicatory controversy. The Tribunal directed the TPO/AO to rectify the error in computation. [Paras 38]TPO/AO directed to rectify the incorrect interchange of margins.Deduction under Section 10A of the Income tax Act - Allowability of deduction under Section 10A in respect of AEGSC (STP) Unit for the year under appeal - HELD THAT: - Following earlier Tribunal findings in the assessee's own cases for prior years, which allowed deduction under Section 10A for the same unit, and applying the principle that identical facts as to the same unit cannot be treated differently for subsequent years, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the claimed deduction for the unit for the assessment year under appeal. [Paras 39, 40, 41]Deduction under Section 10A in respect of the AEGSC (STP) Unit is allowed for Asstt. Year 2010 11.TDS credit verification - Claim for grant of full TDS credit as claimed in return - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal did not decide the quantum but directed the AO to verify the assessee's TDS credit claim and allow the credit if found correct. This directs a factual verification rather than an appellate determination on the merits. [Paras 42]Matter remitted to AO to verify and allow TDS credit as claimed, if supported by record.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed: the Tribunal held the assessee's services to be limited risk ITeS (not KPO); excluded eClerx, Infosys BPO, Accentia and TCS e Serve entities as unreliable comparables; directed inclusion of CG Vak, Informed Technologies and Microgenetics as comparables; remanded R. Systems for computation from quarterly results; disallowed a separate interest-on credit adjustment where working capital adjustment applies; directed rectification of a computational margin error; allowed deduction under Section 10A for the AEGSC (STP) Unit for AY 2010 11; and remitted verification of TDS credit to the AO.

2019 (7) TMI 1936 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT Indian Laws

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Issues: (i) Whether the SEBC Amendment Act, 2019 was unconstitutional as an impermissible attempt to nullify earlier judicial decisions and apply reservation to the ongoing NEET-UG admission process. (ii) Whether the amended Section 16(2), particularly the special clause for NEET-based admissions, was invalid for retrospectively altering the cut-off for application of the SEBC Act to educational admissions.

Issue (i): Whether the SEBC Amendment Act, 2019 was unconstitutional as an impermissible attempt to nullify earlier judicial decisions and apply reservation to the ongoing NEET-UG admission process.

Analysis: The challenge was examined on the touchstone of legislative competence and the doctrine of separation of powers. The Court noted that the earlier decisions relied upon by the petitioners dealt with postgraduate admissions and, in any event, a legislature may validly amend the law retrospectively if it removes the basis of the earlier decision. The amendment was held to clarify the point at which the reservation regime would apply to NEET-governed admissions and did not amount to a legislative overruling of any final judgment.

Conclusion: The challenge to the constitutional validity of the SEBC Amendment Act, 2019 on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the amended Section 16(2), particularly the special clause for NEET-based admissions, was invalid for retrospectively altering the cut-off for application of the SEBC Act to educational admissions.

Analysis: The Court construed Section 16(2) on its plain language and held that the explanation, including the newly inserted clause for NEET and similar national entrance tests, specifically fixed the relevant cut-off for State quota admissions. The provision was treated as a clear legislative choice applicable to a defined class of admissions and not as an attempt to invalidate any binding judicial decision. The Court found no ambiguity in the amended text warranting a restrictive reading in favour of the petitioners.

Conclusion: The amended provision was upheld as valid and applicable to the admissions in question.

Final Conclusion: The petitions failed on merits and the amendment was sustained, leaving the reservation framework operative for the relevant admissions.

Ratio Decidendi: A legislature may retrospectively amend a statute and prescribe the basis of its operation so long as it does not directly set aside a final judicial decision and the amendment is within legislative competence.

Retrospective reservation amendment upheld as valid where it clarified the cut-off for NEET-based admissions.
A retrospective legislative amendment was upheld because it fell within legislative competence and did not amount to an impermissible overruling of final judicial decisions. The Court held that the SEBC Amendment Act, 2019 validly removed the basis of earlier objections by clarifying when the reservation regime applies to NEET-governed admissions. It further construed amended Section 16(2), including the special clause for NEET and similar national entrance tests, as a clear and unambiguous legislative choice fixing the cut-off for State quota admissions. On that reading, the amendment was valid and applicable to the admissions in question, and the reservation framework remained operative.

Constitutional validity of amending legislation - retrospective effect and validating/amending statute - doctrine of separation of powers and prohibition on legislatively nullifying judicial decisions - legislative competence to enact retrospective remedial legislation - transitional/deeming provision governing when an admission process is initiated - interpretation of cut-off for admission process in relation to entrance tests and last date for filing applications - non obstante clause specifying application notwithstanding court ordersTransitional/deeming provision governing when an admission process is initiated - interpretation of cut-off for admission process in relation to entrance tests and last date for filing applications - Interpretation of Section 16(2) of the SEBC Act as amended (sub clause (ia)) and whether the amendment renders NEET UG governed admissions exempt or covered by the SEBC reservations. - HELD THAT: - The Court analysed Section 16(2) and its explanation as a transitory scheme providing exceptions to the SEBC Act where an admission process had already been initiated. The Division Bench's approach in earlier Nagpur decisions concerned postgraduate admissions and notifications; those decisions do not automatically determine the meaning or effect of the subsequent statutory amendment. The newly introduced sub clause (ia) is a clear and unambiguous legislative specification for admissions based on NEET or other national entrance tests, fixing the cut off by reference to the last date for filing application forms for State quota seats or authority specified seats. The statutory language, including the non obstante phrase, is plain and no strained construction was warranted; the amendment therefore legitimately specifies a defined class (NEET governed cases) and the relevant cut off for the admission process. [Paras 22, 23, 42]Section 16(2) as amended (including sub clause (ia)) is to be interpreted as a clear, specified exception for NEET governed admissions fixing the cut off by reference to the last date for filing application forms; the amendment is not ambiguous and is operative as enacted.Legislative competence to enact retrospective remedial legislation - retrospective effect and validating/amending statute - Whether the State Legislature exceeded its competence in enacting the SEBC Amendment Act 2019 (including retrospective effect) so as to be constitutionally invalid. - HELD THAT: - Having regard to settled doctrine, the legislature may enact validating or remedial legislation, including with retrospective effect, provided it possesses competence over the subject matter and does not impermissibly encroach upon judicial power by directly nullifying a final decision. The Court found that the SEBC Act had been upheld as within legislative competence, and the amendment clarifies applicability to a defined class (NEET matters) rather than purporting to annul any final judicial decision. The amendment accordingly falls within legislative competence and is not invalid merely because it operates retrospectively or specifies a different cut off for a sub class of entrance tests. [Paras 39, 41, 42]The SEBC Amendment Act 2019 is within the legislative competence of the State and is not rendered unconstitutional on the ground of being a remedial or retrospective enactment.Doctrine of separation of powers and prohibition on legislatively nullifying judicial decisions - non obstante clause specifying application notwithstanding court orders - Whether the SEBC Amendment Act 2019 impermissibly attempts to nullify or render void prior judicial decisions or orders. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the principle that legislature cannot directly set aside final court decisions but may, by competent legislation that removes the legal basis of a judgment, alter the legal consequences. The impugned amendment does not directly target or nullify any final judicial decision; challenges before the Nagpur Bench and Supreme Court mainly related to postgraduate notifications and, crucially, the substantive challenge to the Ordinance/Amendment was later dismissed. There being no specific final decision which the amendment purports to annul, and given that the amendment provides clarification for a specified class, the Court concluded there was no attempt to usurp judicial power. [Paras 36, 39, 43]The SEBC Amendment Act 2019 does not impermissibly nullify any judicial decision and does not violate the separation of powers by attempting to legislatively overrule final court orders.Final Conclusion: The petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra SEBC (Amendment) Act, 2019 are without merit and are dismissed; the amendment (including the NEET specific sub clause) is to be given effect as a valid legislative specification of the cut off for application of the SEBC reservations.

2019 (7) TMI 528 - ITAT DELHI Income Tax

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Tribunal rules in favor of assessee, deletes significant additions by AO, emphasizing need for proper verification
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting significant additions made by the AO for various alleged discrepancies such as illegal gratification, transfer pricing adjustments, seized invoices, per diem expenses, bogus purchases, professional fees, traveling expenses, related party transactions, and others. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of proper verification and evidence before making such additions, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee on most grounds. Penalty proceedings were dismissed as premature.

Choice of accounting method - rejection of books under section 145(3) - cash system versus mercantile system of accounting - real income / true profits test - burden and standard of verification of seized material - addition under section 69C / unexplained expenditure - addition under section 69A - transfer pricing: determination of arm's length price and appropriateness of TNMM v. CUP - treatment of reimbursements and cost to cost transactions in transfer pricing - section 292C presumption for documents found on search - double disallowance / protective additions and avoidance of double taxation - application of section 40A(2)(b) to related party payments - application of section 43B to statutory liabilities - onus of proof under section 68 (identity, genuineness, creditworthiness) - penalty proceedings premature where assessment disputedChoice of accounting method - cash system versus mercantile system of accounting - rejection of books under section 145(3) - real income / true profits test - acceptability of assessee's cash system of accounting for AY 2011-12 - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined whether the assessee, a special purpose joint venture carrying out overlays contracts for CWG 2010, could follow the cash system. Relying on statutory scheme in section 145 and authoritative precedents, and after reviewing seized material, seized invoices and DRP/AO findings, the Tribunal held that the assessee had regularly employed cash accounting from commencement and in subsequent years; that company law requirement to prepare accrual accounts under section 209 does not oust the assessees' option under section 145; and that the AO/DRP failed to demonstrate that real profits could not be properly deduced from the cash books. The Tribunal therefore held that the books could not be rejected and the assessment could not be completed on mercantile basis. The ground is allowed and income is to be computed on the cash system. [Paras 23, 26, 28, 29, 36]Assessee's cash method of accounting accepted; AO/DRP's rejection under section 145(3) set aside and income not to be computed on accrual basis.Addition under section 69C / unexplained expenditure - burden and standard of verification of seized material - section 292C presumption for documents found on search - addition of alleged illegal gratification (Rs. 35.85 crores) to assessee's income - HELD THAT: - AO and DRP relied on an email and handwritten notes seized from a director's residence and on public reports and FIR/CBI action to infer payments for illegal gratification and recoupment via bogus billing. The Tribunal examined the seized documents, the absence of corroborative evidence of actual payments, the contents of the arbitral award (which negatived allegations of fraud/collusion), and gaps in investigation. It held that the seized material did not establish that the assessee had incurred such illegal payments and that the AO/DRP had not produced cogent evidence proving payment. Consequently the addition under section 69/69C was not sustainable and was deleted. [Paras 37, 38, 42, 44, 45]Addition of Rs. 35.85 crores for alleged illegal gratification deleted; ground allowed for assessee.Transfer pricing: determination of arm's length price and appropriateness of TNMM v. CUP - treatment of reimbursements and cost to cost transactions in transfer pricing - TP adjustment reducing ALP to nil and upward adjustment of Rs. 58,43,94,894 - HELD THAT: - TPO rejected the assessee's TNMM based study (initially on multiple year data and entity level testing) and, invoking alleged bogus billing and auditor qualifications in Form 3CEB, applied CUP to set ALP at nil. The Tribunal found the assessee had submitted a contemporaneous TP study with comparables, documentary support, and (on request) current year analysis showing the assessee's margins exceed comparables; that certain transactions (reimbursements/cost to cost) were supported and not to be treated as nil; and that the TPO failed to follow required comparability/pricing steps or to specify comparables/adjustments when applying CUP. On that basis the Tribunal held the TPO's CUP at nil determination was unsustainable and accepted the assessee's methodology; the TP adjustment was deleted. [Paras 49, 58, 69, 76, 77]TP adjustment of Rs. 58,43,94,894 set aside; assessee's TP documentation and method accepted.Seized documents and missing invoices - addition under section 69C - addition of differential value of seized invoices (Rs. 112,232,956) - HELD THAT: - AO added amounts for invoices recorded in books but not seized. Assessee explained some originals were at project sites and subsequently produced originals, bank payment evidence and ledger entries. Tribunal found AO did not verify produced originals or make enquiries after they were produced and could not simply reject invoices because they were not seized. In absence of further negative findings, the addition could not be sustained. [Paras 78, 79, 81]Addition deleted; invoices accepted as genuine.Per diem / daily allowance - Rule 6DD and section 40A(3) - principle of audi alteram partem when relying on third party material - disallowance of per diem expenses (Rs. 2,14,59,000) - HELD THAT: - Expenses related to daily allowances of numerous foreign expatriates engaged under technical services agreements; documents (agreements, passports, flight/hotel bills, list of expatriates) were on record showing purpose and necessity. AO compared with other contractors without providing opportunity to cross examine and treated documents as self serving. Tribunal found evidence established genuineness and business purpose, and procedural fairness was not followed; therefore disallowance wasdeleted. [Paras 82, 85, 86, 87]Disallowance deleted; per diem expenses allowed.Bogus purchases - reliance on third party survey statements - onus of proof and requirement of cross examination - additions for alleged bogus purchases from M/s Nitin Enterprises and M/s Garg Road Lines (Rs. 31,71,400) - HELD THAT: - AO relied on third party statements recorded during survey to treat purchases as bogus. Tribunal noted assessee produced originals, ledgers, bank payments, and that in related proceedings statements of third parties were found unreliable; assessee was not given opportunity to cross examine third parties. After assessing records, Tribunal found AO had no cogent basis to reject transactions and directed deletion of additions. [Paras 88, 92, 93, 95]Additions deleted; purchases accepted as genuine.Deductibility of professional fees - double disallowance and requirement of coherent computation - disallowance of professional fees (Rs. 1,03,15,369) - HELD THAT: - AO disallowed professional fees alleging bogus bills and also included same amounts in broader disallowance, leading to double counting. Tribunal reviewed ledger, bills, narration of services, and found assessee had produced supporting evidence and AO had not shown services were not rendered or vendors were fraudulent. Disallowance was therefore unsustainable and had been double counted; AO directed to delete the disallowance. [Paras 96, 99, 100]Disallowance deleted; professional fees accepted (with adjustments already dealt under TP etc.).Travel and conveyance expenditure - business purpose and comparability - principle against making adverse inference from other contractors' accounts without confrontation - disallowance of travel & conveyance expenses (Rs. 5,39,23,603) - HELD THAT: - AO compared assessee's travel/hotel expenditure with other contractors and disallowed large sum; DRP directed verification. Tribunal found substantial evidence (agreements, lists of expatriates, tickets, hotel bills, payment through banking channels) to establish business purpose and that AO failed to give assessee opportunity to test third party material; comparison with other contractors without confronting assesse unacceptable. Disallowance deleted. [Paras 101, 104, 105]Disallowance deleted; travel & conveyance expenses allowed.Section 40A(2)(b) on related party payments - requirement for AO to show excessiveness and determine fair market value - addition for related party payments to Meroform India Pvt. Ltd. and Litmus Designs (Rs. 49,008,835) - HELD THAT: - AO invoked section 40A(2)(b) treating payments as excessive/bogus though recipient entities had offered the receipts to tax and payments were evidenced by ledgers, invoices, bank entries and confirmations; AO did not undertake comparison to show payments were excessive or produce comparables. Tribunal held that where recipient has been assessed and tax paid, and assessee produced documentation proving nexus and reality of services/reimbursement, addition under section 40A(2) cannot be sustained. [Paras 109, 111, 112, 113]Addition deleted; related party payments accepted.Negative cash balance and additions under section 69C - addition of negative cash balance (Rs. 1,22,696) as unexplained expenditure - HELD THAT: - Seized cashbook showed certain days with negative balances. Assessee explained these as clerical errors subsequently corrected in finalised audited accounts and produced corrected cashbook and audit evidence. Tribunal considered explanations but observed the AO remained unconvinced; on review the Tribunal sustained AO's addition on this issue, noting negative cash balance could indicate unexplained expenditure and that explanation did not persuade tribunal to delete addition. [Paras 114, 115, 117, 119]Addition of Rs. 1,22,696 under section 69C upheld; ground dismissed for assessee.Capital v. revenue expenditure - event management context - treatment of certain expenditures claimed as revenue but treated as capital (net contested amount Rs. 1,18,24,175) - HELD THAT: - AO treated an array of purchases (furniture, fire alarms, JCB, gypsy, toilets etc.) as capital. Tribunal reviewed nature/use: many items (fire detectors, traffic cones, consumables, certain furniture, dynamometer) were temporary/event specific, largely scrapped or sold after the event and held to be revenue in nature; motor vehicle purchase was held to be capital and depreciation treatment to apply. Net effect: part of AO's deletions upheld and part confirmed as capital; protective addition reduced accordingly. [Paras 120, 121, 123, 126, 127]Most items reclassified as revenue (deletion of capital disallowance) except motor car treated as capital; ground partly allowed.Revenue deduction for security services - addition treating payment for security guards as capital or security deposit (Rs. 1,22,626) - HELD THAT: - Invoice and register for security services showed payments for security staff deployed at CWG, paid by account cheque, and details lodged with AO. AO treated amount as refundable security deposit without supporting evidence. Tribunal found evidence supported revenue character as payment for services and directed deletion of addition. [Paras 128, 131]Addition deleted; security services payments allowed.Closing stock valuation and section 68 - addition of closing stock (Rs. 1,547,141) under section 68 - HELD THAT: - AO disallowed closing stock for lack of originals and confirmations. Tribunal observed stock amount was credited in profit & loss (thus already affecting profit), assessee produced details (qty, rates, values) and subsequently sold the stock in next year, demonstrating genuineness. Addition under section 68 was therefore unsustainable and led to double addition; deletion directed. [Paras 132, 133, 135]Addition deleted; closing stock accepted.Advances / recoverables and balance sheet items - addition of advances recoverable (Rs. 115,875,146) - HELD THAT: - AO added large part of advances as unexplained. Tribunal reviewed components (custom duty recoverable, CENVAT/service tax credits, VAT refunds, advances to employees, receivable on sale of motor car) and found many items were statutory refunds or recoverables, some tied to capital treatment of vehicle, and that AO's blanket addition was incorrect. Tribunal directed deletion of the addition and remittance for verification where appropriate. [Paras 136, 137, 139, 140]Addition deleted; advances recoverable accepted and AO directed to adjust/computerise in accordance with statutory provisions.Sundry creditors and other liabilities - requirement of verification - additions of sundry creditors (Rs. 4,657,484) and other liabilities (Rs. 6,981,349) - HELD THAT: - Assessee produced lists, ledgers, bank payments (many through account payee cheques) and supporting invoices. AO nevertheless added liabilities citing lack of confirmations. Tribunal held that once assessee discharges onus by producing documentary evidence, AO must disprove with cogent enquiries; AO had not done so and in many heads had already disallowed corresponding expenses (leading to duplicative additions). Tribunal directed deletion of these additions. [Paras 140, 141, 143]Additions deleted; sundry creditors and other liabilities accepted subject to normal verification.Statutory liabilities, section 43B and timing of deduction - addition of statutory liabilities (Rs. 155,310,286) including VAT/CST, service tax and TDS - HELD THAT: - AO added statutory liabilities as unexplained. Tribunal directed deletion of TDS payable (amount had not been claimed and was not income) and held that service tax/VAT issues fall within section 43B timing rules; Tribunal remitted those items to AO to verify whether payments were made before filing due date so as to allow deduction under section 43B. Consequently parts were deleted and parts remanded for limited verification. [Paras 144, 146, 147, 148]TDS addition deleted; service tax and VAT/CST treatment remanded to AO for verification under section 43B before final determination.Section 68 - unsecured loans: identity and genuineness - addition of unsecured loans (Rs. 10,510,000) under section 68 - HELD THAT: - Assessee produced confirmations, PANs, bank statements and returned amounts; lenders (directors, sister concern) were co operating and assessed by same AO; replies under summons under section 131 were on record. Tribunal held assessee discharged onus of showing identity, genuineness and creditworthiness and AO had not disproved with inquiries; addition under section 68 deleted. [Paras 149, 152, 153, 154]Addition under section 68 deleted; unsecured loans accepted as genuine.Addition under section 69A (unexplained difference between target cost and consideration) - addition of alleged difference between purported target cost and consideration receivable from OC (Rs. 30,32,55,951) - HELD THAT: - AO relied on seized comparative pages (small sample) to compute a blanket margin and added under section 69A. Tribunal emphasised that s.69A applies where monies are not recorded in books; here sale receipts and purchase costs were recorded and the AO had not demonstrated suppression or absence of entries. AO's comparison sampled only a tiny fraction of items and failed to investigate overall accounts or other expenses. Accordingly the addition under s.69A was unsustainable and deleted. [Paras 155, 156, 161, 162]Addition under section 69A deleted.Addition under section 69C based on comparison with other vendors - cherry picking - addition for alleged difference between assessee's quoted prices and other vendors (Rs. 34,10,40,959) - HELD THAT: - AO compared selective items across contractors, picked minima and computed differences to generate an unexplained expenditure addition under section 69C. Tribunal held this approach was cherry picking, ignored the contract's service/turnkey nature, failed to confront or test third party material and, crucially, misconceived the income/expenditure character (charging a higher consideration is income, not an expenditure). Section 69C was inapplicable and addition deleted. [Paras 163, 164, 166, 167]Addition under section 69C deleted.Protective aggregate disallowance and double counting - global disallowance of total expenditure (Rs. 129,27,50,026) in addition to specific disallowances - HELD THAT: - AO made a blanket disallowance of total expenditure despite having specific headwise disallowances (leading to double/triple counting). DRP itself observed that 100% expenses cannot be held bogus and directed protective adjustments only. Tribunal held AO failed to perform headwise verification, had not produced cogent evidence to sustain a blanket disallowance, and double counting rendered global disallowance unsustainable. Deletion directed. [Paras 168, 169, 170, 172]Blanket disallowance deleted; headwise issues to be treated as earlier decided.Maintainability of general / omnibus grounds and procedural rulings - miscellaneous grounds (grounds 21-23) including challenge to overall computation and initiation of penalty proceedings - HELD THAT: - Ground 21 (general contention about total income exceeding gross receipts) received no specific fresh argument and was dismissed. Grounds 22 and 23 challenged initiation of penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) and 271G; Tribunal observed those challenges premature in appellate proceedings against assessment and dismissed them without prejudice to separate penalty remedies available to assessee. [Paras 173, 174, 175]Ground 21 dismissed; grounds 22 and 23 dismissed as premature (penalty fora separate).Final Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It upheld the assessee's continued use of the cash system for AY 2011-12 and deleted the major additions and adjustments made by the AO/DRP - including the alleged illegal gratification addition, the transfer pricing adjustment, multiple disallowances relating to seized invoices, per diem, bogus purchases, professional fees, travel/conveyance, related party payments, closing stock, advances, sundry creditors and a large aggregate disallowance - while confirming only the limited addition for the negative cash balance and treating certain capital items (motor car) as capital. Service tax and VAT/CST treatment was remitted to the AO for verification under section 43B and penalty challenges were held premature.

2019 (5) TMI 1908 - Supreme Court Indian Laws

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Issues: (i) Whether the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation Act, 2018 was constitutionally valid and had cured the basis of the earlier invalidation; (ii) whether the reservation of the Bill for the consideration of the President and the President's assent were constitutionally infirm; (iii) whether the challenge based on creamy layer, adequacy of representation, administrative efficiency, and retrospectivity could invalidate the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation Act, 2018 was constitutionally valid and had cured the basis of the earlier invalidation.

Analysis: The earlier invalidation had rested on the absence of quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation, backwardness, and impact on administrative efficiency as required by the controlling constitutional doctrine governing reservations in promotion. After that decision, the State constituted an expert committee, collected and analysed data, and enacted the 2018 legislation on that foundation. A validating law is permissible if it removes the basis of the earlier invalidity rather than merely overruling the judicial decision by declaration. The legislative competence to enact retrospectively and to cure the defect was therefore upheld.

Conclusion: The Act was held to be constitutionally valid and the basis of the earlier invalidation was treated as cured.

Issue (ii): Whether the reservation of the Bill for the consideration of the President and the President's assent were constitutionally infirm.

Analysis: The Governor's power under Article 200 is discretionary and may be exercised where there is a genuine constitutional doubt. The constitutional scheme does not confine reservation only to cases of repugnancy, and the validity of the President's assent is not open to judicial scrutiny. Once the Bill was reserved and the President assented, the requirements of Article 201 stood satisfied.

Conclusion: The reservation of the Bill and the President's assent were upheld as valid.

Issue (iii): Whether the challenge based on creamy layer, adequacy of representation, administrative efficiency, and retrospectivity could invalidate the Act.

Analysis: The Court held that the creamy layer concept had no application to the grant of consequential seniority in the context of promotion under Article 16(4A). It also held that the State's data exercise was a permissible method of assessing adequacy of representation and that judicial review must remain limited when an expert committee has collected relevant and representative material. The retrospective protection of consequential seniority from 1978 was also held not to be arbitrary, particularly in light of the earlier protection given to pre-1996 promotions and the validating purpose of the legislation.

Conclusion: The additional constitutional challenges were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Reservation Act 2018 failed in substance, and the legislation was upheld as a valid exercise of the enabling power concerning reservation in promotion with consequential seniority.

Ratio Decidendi: A legislature may enact a validating law with retrospective effect to cure the defect found in an earlier statute, and such a law will be sustained if it removes the basis of invalidity while remaining within constitutional limits; in reservation-in-promotion matters, the State's expert data assessment is subject only to limited judicial review.

Consequential seniority reservation upheld where validating legislation cured earlier defects through expert data and retrospective protection remained constitutionally valid.
The Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation Act, 2018 was upheld because it addressed the earlier invalidity through expert-committee data on backwardness, inadequate representation and administrative efficiency. A validating law may operate retrospectively where it removes the defect underlying prior invalidation rather than merely overriding a judicial decision. Reservation of the Bill for presidential consideration was permissible where constitutional doubt existed, and presidential assent was not subject to judicial scrutiny. Creamy layer principles did not apply to consequential seniority under Article 16(4A); the State's data assessment attracted limited judicial review, and retrospective protection of seniority was not arbitrary.

Validation of remedial legislation curing basis of judicial invalidation - Judicial review of executive data collection under Article 16(4A) - Subjective satisfaction of State on inadequacy of representation - Maintenance of efficiency of administration under Article 335 - Applicability of the creamy layer principle to consequential seniority - Non-justiciability of Presidential assent under Article 201 - Retrospective validation and protection of promotions and seniorityValidation of remedial legislation curing basis of judicial invalidation - Retrospective validation and protection of promotions and seniority - Validity of the Karnataka Reservation Act 2018 as a legislative cure of the basis of invalidation in B.K. Pavitra I - HELD THAT: - The Court held that a legislature competent to enact law may remove the basis of a prior judicial declaration of invalidity by enacting remedial or validating legislation. The Reservation Act 2018, enacted after B.K. Pavitra I, was held to remove the defect identified by that decision and therefore does not constitute an unlawful usurpation of judicial power. Curative and retrospective legislation is constitutionally permissible provided it truly removes the basis of the earlier invalidity and remains within legislative competence and other constitutional limits. Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the Reservation Act 2018 cures the deficiency found in the Reservation Act 2002 and validly protects consequential seniority (including retrospective protection of seniority accorded from 27 April 1978). [Paras 74, 75, 76, 141, 144]The Reservation Act 2018 validly cures the basis of B.K. Pavitra I; its retrospective protection of consequential seniority is constitutional and sustained.Judicial review of executive data collection under Article 16(4A) - Subjective satisfaction of State on inadequacy of representation - Maintenance of efficiency of administration under Article 335 - Whether the Ratna Prabha Committee's data and the State's satisfaction fulfilled the Nagaraj/Jarnail requisites for exercising Article 16(4A) - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the scope of judicial review where a State collects and analyses quantifiable data before legislating under Article 16(4A). It reiterated that adequacy of representation and considerations of administrative efficiency involve the State's subjective satisfaction and that courts must show due deference, intervening only where no reasonable body could have arrived at the conclusion or where the material is irrelevant or absent. The Ratna Prabha Committee conducted a representative quantitative study across thirty-one departments, applied accepted sampling and social-science methodology, and analysed cadre/group data to conclude inadequacy of representation and no adverse effect on administrative efficiency. The Court found no basis to treat the report as arbitrary or to reweigh the factual conclusions; minor imperfections in data collection did not invalidate the legislative exercise. [Paras 95, 96, 99, 100, 101]The Ratna Prabha Committee's report and the State's exercise satisfy the requirements of Nagaraj (as clarified by Jarnail) and are not vulnerable to judicial invalidation on the facts before the Court.Applicability of the creamy layer principle to consequential seniority - Maintenance of efficiency of administration under Article 335 - Whether the creamy layer doctrine must be applied to consequential seniority under the Reservation Act 2018 - HELD THAT: - The Court analysed the scope of the creamy layer principle as developed in Indra Sawhney, Nagaraj and Jarnail. It observed that Nagaraj and Jarnail treat the creamy layer as a facet of the equality code, but emphasised that consequential seniority is incident to promotion and that progression in service cannot be equated to acquiring 'creamy layer' status. Nagaraj treated catch-up and consequential seniority as service-law concepts rather than immutable constitutional mandates. Consequently, the Court held that the creamy layer doctrine does not bear upon the protection of consequential seniority conferred by the Reservation Act 2018, and that Jarnail's holdings do not compel exclusion of consequential seniority on creamy-layer grounds. [Paras 138, 139]The creamy layer principle is not applicable so as to invalidate the statutory protection of consequential seniority under the Reservation Act 2018.Non-justiciability of Presidential assent under Article 201 - Validation of remedial legislation curing basis of judicial invalidation - Validity of the Governor's reservation of the Bill to the President and the President's subsequent assent - HELD THAT: - The Court reviewed Articles 200-201 and precedent (including Hoechst and Kaiser-I-Hind) on the Governor's discretion to reserve a Bill and the non-justiciability of the President's assent. It held that Article 200 contemplates a range of situations where the Governor may reserve a Bill; the Governor's reservation in this case (referencing the Supreme Court decisions and the need for constitutional scrutiny) was within constitutional discretion. Once the Bill was reserved and the President assented, that procedure under Article 201 was completed and the assent is not subject to judicial review merely because the State government had earlier stated the Bill need not be reserved. [Paras 67, 68, 69, 70]The Governor's reservation and the President's assent were constitutionally effective; the assent is non-justiciable and does not vitiate the Reservation Act 2018.Judicial review of executive data collection under Article 16(4A) - Subjective satisfaction of State on inadequacy of representation - Allegation of over-representation in specific departments (KPTCL, PWD) and scope of the Act's application - HELD THAT: - Petitioners pointed to apparent over-representation in certain entities (KPTCL, PWD). The Court observed that the State's dataset covered thirty-one departments representative of service composition and that roster calculations and adequacy must be assessed on sanctioned cadre strength (post-based) as explained in Sabharwal and Nagaraj. The Ratna Prabha analysis and existing Government Orders (including maintenance of representation limits) addressed the concern; minor departmental variances do not invalidate the State-wide legislative exercise. [Paras 143]Claims of over-representation in particular entities do not vitiate the Reservation Act 2018; the Act remains applicable as validated.Final Conclusion: The Constitution Bench upheld the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Reservation Act 2018. It held that the State carried out the requisite data-collection exercise, that the Ratna Prabha Committee's report and the legislative response cured the defects identified in B.K. Pavitra I, that the President's assent was constitutionally effective and non-justiciable, that the creamy layer doctrine does not invalidate statutory consequential seniority, and that the Act's retrospective protection of seniority is permissible; the writ petitions and connected applications were dismissed.

2019 (4) TMI 1436 - ITAT DELHI Income Tax

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Tribunal allows appeal, deletes disallowances; emphasizes need for specific evidence
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, deleting several disallowances including interest on car loan, disallowance under Section 14A, ad hoc disallowances of telephone, vehicle, electricity, and water expenses. The disallowance of software expenses as capital expenditure was remanded for reconsideration due to lack of clarity on enduring nature. The Tribunal stressed the importance of specific evidence and thorough examination in making disallowances.

Disallowance of interest on business loan where interest-free funds available - application of section 14A and Rule 8D - attribution/disallowance for exempt income - ad hoc disallowance for alleged personal element in business expenses - apportionment of expenditure for residence-cum-office - capitalisation versus revenue treatment of software upgradation/subscription - remand for verification of vouchers and opportunity of hearingDisallowance of interest on business loan where interest-free funds available - Deletion of addition of interest of Rs. 1,42,376 attributable to car loan - HELD THAT: - The Assessing Officer disallowed interest charged on a car loan because the assessee had interest free advances and other funds during the year. The Tribunal noted that in the earlier assessment year (AY 2009 10) the Tribunal had deleted an identical disallowance where the only interest bearing borrowing related to the car loan, there was no finding of diversion of the car loan, and the car loan was disbursed to the car seller for a business purpose. The same reasoning applies to the year under appeal: the AO did not demonstrate diversion of the car loan or that the loan was not used for the purpose of profession, and the presence of interest free funds or capital with the assessee did not justify disallowance of interest on a loan shown to be for business use. [Paras 11, 12]Tribunal deleted the addition and allowed the ground of appeal relating to the interest disallowance.Application of section 14A and Rule 8D - attribution/disallowance for exempt income - Deletion of disallowance of Rs. 6,08,180 made under section 14A read with Rule 8D in respect of dividend income - HELD THAT: - AO invoked section 14A/Rule 8D on the basis that the assessee had made substantial investments yielding exempt dividend income and had not separately identified expenditure in relation to such income. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decision in the assessee's AY 2009 10, which held that the AO must first examine and verify the assessee's statement and any supporting certificates before mechanically applying Rule 8D; absent a recorded satisfaction and specific evidence of expenses incurred for earning exempt income, the AO could not make the ad hoc disallowance. Applying those findings to the present year, the Tribunal found the addition unjustified and observed that AO had not established the requisite nexus or performed the preliminary enquiries mandated by authorities relied upon. [Paras 17, 18]Tribunal set aside the disallowance under section 14A/Rule 8D and allowed the ground of appeal.Ad hoc disallowance for personal element in business expenses - Deletion of ad hoc disallowance of telephone, vehicle and related expenses (originally 1/8th; CIT(A) restricted to 1/10th) - HELD THAT: - The AO made an ad hoc disallowance on the ground that personal element could not be ruled out from telephone, vehicle and allied expenses, without specifying particular items or demonstrating personal use. The Tribunal recalled the settled principle that ad hoc disallowances are unsustainable where the AO fails to identify specific items used for personal purposes or to establish the personal element. In the absence of any pointed finding or evidence by the AO as to which expenditures were personal, the entire addition was held to be unjustified. [Paras 20, 21]Tribunal deleted the ad hoc disallowance and allowed the ground of appeal.Apportionment of expenditure for residence-cum-office - Sustenance of part disallowance of electricity and water expenses amounting to Rs. 74,438 - HELD THAT: - The AO disallowed one third of electricity and water expenses where the assessee's premises were used as residence cum office and separate metering or apportionment was not provided. CIT(A) examined bills and explanations and allowed part of the claim but sustained disallowances in respect of certain premises (farm house, specified residence, and a portion of the residence cum office). The Tribunal found no justification to interfere with the appellate authority's specific findings, noting the assessee had not successfully challenged those disallowances before the CIT(A) and could not satisfactorily explain why they were unjustified. [Paras 23, 24]Tribunal dismissed this ground of appeal and upheld the part disallowance as recorded by the CIT(A).Capitalisation versus revenue treatment of software upgradation/subscription - remand for verification of vouchers and opportunity of hearing - Remand for fresh adjudication of whether software upgradation/subscription expenses are capital or revenue in nature - HELD THAT: - AO treated certain software expenses as capital in nature and allowed depreciation only, disallowing the balance as capital expenditure. The assessee contended the expenses were for upgradation/subscription and referred to decisions holding application software/upgrades to be revenue in nature. The Tribunal observed that the AO had not explained how the expenditure resulted in an enduring benefit or generated capital asset value, nor had he pointed to specific facts demonstrating capitalization. Given the content of vouchers and bills and absence of a focussed finding by AO, the Tribunal concluded the matter required reconsideration: the AO must verify the bills/vouchers, apply the legal tests distinguishing capital from revenue expenditure, and decide after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. [Paras 26, 30]Tribunal set aside the orders below and restored the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after verification of supporting documents and hearing.Final Conclusion: Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for AY 2011 12: deletions were directed in respect of the interest disallowance, the section 14A/Rule 8D disallowance, and the ad hoc telephone/vehicle disallowance; the partial disallowance of electricity and water expenses was upheld; the question of tax treatment of software upgradation/subscription was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after verification of vouchers and hearing.

2019 (4) TMI 2175 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH IBC

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The Tribunal considered the following core legal issues:

- Whether the Resolution Plan submitted by the Resolution Applicants (a consortium of M/s Khilari Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Topnotch Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.) meets the requirements under Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and whether it should be approved.

- Whether the Resolution Plan provides for the payment of insolvency resolution process costs, operational creditors, and financial creditors in accordance with the IBC.

- Whether the Resolution Plan adequately addresses the interests of all stakeholders, including employees, workmen, financial creditors, and operational creditors.

- Whether the Tribunal should grant the reliefs and concessions requested by the Resolution Applicants, including waivers of certain statutory liabilities and approvals for the implementation of the Resolution Plan.

- Whether the Resolution Plan complies with Section 29A of the IBC, which disqualifies certain persons from submitting a resolution plan.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Compliance with Section 30(2) of the IBC

- Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 30(2) of the IBC requires that a resolution plan must provide for the payment of insolvency resolution process costs, repayment of debts of operational creditors, and management of the affairs of the corporate debtor after approval.

- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the Resolution Plan to ensure it complied with the statutory requirements. It noted that the plan provided for the payment of insolvency resolution process costs in priority to other debts and addressed the repayment of operational and financial creditors.

- Key evidence and findings: The Resolution Plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) with a 77.08% voting share, exceeding the required 66% threshold.

- Application of law to facts: The Tribunal found that the Resolution Plan met the requirements of Section 30(2) of the IBC, as it provided for the necessary payments and management structure post-approval.

- Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal did not find any competing arguments that would prevent the approval of the Resolution Plan.

- Conclusions: The Resolution Plan complied with Section 30(2) of the IBC and was eligible for approval.

Issue 2: Interests of Stakeholders

- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The IBC requires that the resolution plan should consider the interests of all stakeholders, including financial creditors, operational creditors, employees, and workmen.

- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal reviewed the provisions of the Resolution Plan that addressed the claims of various stakeholders, including financial creditors, operational creditors, employees, and statutory dues.

- Key evidence and findings: The Resolution Plan proposed payments to financial creditors, operational creditors, and statutory dues, and provided for the continuation of employment for existing employees.

- Application of law to facts: The Tribunal found that the Resolution Plan adequately addressed the interests of all stakeholders.

- Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal did not find any competing arguments that would undermine the interests of stakeholders.

- Conclusions: The Resolution Plan adequately addressed the interests of all stakeholders.

Issue 3: Reliefs and Concessions

- Relevant legal framework and precedents: Reliefs and concessions may be granted under the IBC to facilitate the implementation of a resolution plan.

- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal considered the reliefs and concessions requested by the Resolution Applicants, including waivers of certain statutory liabilities and approvals for the implementation of the Resolution Plan.

- Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted that certain requested concessions could not be granted due to lack of corroborative evidence or uncertainty.

- Application of law to facts: The Tribunal granted some reliefs and concessions while denying others, such as waivers of outstanding tax demands, which must be dealt with according to the respective provisions of law.

- Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal balanced the need for reliefs and concessions with the requirements of applicable laws and regulations.

- Conclusions: The Tribunal granted some reliefs and concessions but denied others due to legal constraints.

Issue 4: Compliance with Section 29A of the IBC

- Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 29A of the IBC disqualifies certain persons from submitting a resolution plan, including those who have been convicted of an offense or are connected to a willful defaulter.

- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal reviewed the affidavit submitted by the Resolution Applicants to ensure compliance with Section 29A.

- Key evidence and findings: The Resolution Applicants submitted an affidavit stating that they were not disqualified under Section 29A.

- Application of law to facts: The Tribunal found that the Resolution Applicants were eligible to submit the Resolution Plan.

- Treatment of competing arguments: There were no competing arguments regarding the eligibility of the Resolution Applicants under Section 29A.

- Conclusions: The Resolution Applicants complied with Section 29A and were eligible to submit the Resolution Plan.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- The Tribunal approved the Resolution Plan submitted by the Resolution Applicants, finding that it met the requirements of Section 30(2) of the IBC and adequately addressed the interests of all stakeholders.

- The Tribunal granted certain reliefs and concessions requested by the Resolution Applicants but denied others due to legal constraints.

- The Tribunal found that the Resolution Applicants were eligible under Section 29A of the IBC to submit the Resolution Plan.

- The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the CoC's commercial wisdom in approving the Resolution Plan, as highlighted by the Supreme Court in the case of K Sashidhar & Indian Overseas Bank & ors.

- The Resolution Plan is binding on the corporate debtor and all stakeholders, and the "Moratorium" imposed under Section 14 of the IBC shall cease to have any effect.

- The Tribunal granted liberty to the Resolution Applicants to move a Miscellaneous Application if required in connection with the implementation of the Resolution Plan.

NCLT approves resolution plan under Section 30(6) IBC 2016 with majority creditor voting enabling company revival
NCLT Mumbai approved a resolution plan under Section 30(6) of IBC 2016. The plan received majority voting from Committee of Creditors as per prescribed percentage. Resolution applicant submitted required affidavit under Section 30(1) confirming eligibility under Section 29A. The plan satisfied Section 30(2) requirements and addressed all stakeholder interests. Upon approval, the plan became binding on corporate debtor and stakeholders, enabling company revival with immediate effect. Moratorium under Section 14 ceased. Resolution professional directed to submit records to IBBI and transfer to new promoters. Application disposed.

2019 (4) TMI 2023 - Supreme Court Indian Laws

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

UAPA special bail test requires prima facie truth from investigative material, while admissibility and credibility remain for trial.
Under the UAPA special bail regime, the court must examine the case diary, the Section 173 report, and the total investigative material to decide whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusation is prima facie true. At the bail stage, the court does not weigh admissibility, credibility, or final evidentiary value, as those matters belong to trial. The High Court should not discard witness statements or documentary material relied on by the investigating agency when applying the statutory bail bar.

Prima facie true - proviso to Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - totality of material in the charge-sheet and case diary - redacted statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of protected witnesses - inadmissibility and evidentiary objections to be tested at trial - role of the Designated Court in bail applications under special enactments - application of principles in TADA/MCOCA jurisprudence to UAPA bail standardRedacted statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of protected witnesses - totality of material in the charge-sheet and case diary - proviso to Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Whether the High Court was justified in excluding sealed/ redacted Section 164 statements and other material from consideration when deciding the bail application under the proviso to Section 43D(5) UAPA. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that under the proviso to Section 43D(5) the court considering bail must peruse the case diary and the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and all other material gathered by the investigating agency to form an opinion whether there are reasonable grounds for believing the accusation is prima facie true. The High Court erred in excluding the sealed Section 164 statements and other material merely because they were kept in a sealed cover or because copies had not earlier been supplied; the question of admissibility of those statements and certificates is for trial. The Designated Court's decision to consider the redacted statements (now taken on record) and the other materials was the correct approach for forming the prima facie opinion under Section 43D(5). [Paras 19, 21, 22, 23, 24]High Court's exclusion of sealed Section 164 statements and related material was incorrect; such material must be considered when forming the prima facie opinion under the proviso to Section 43D(5).Prima facie true - totality of material in the charge-sheet and case diary - role of the Designated Court in bail applications under special enactments - Whether, on the totality of materials presented with the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the respondent is prima facie true such that bail must be denied under the proviso to Section 43D(5) UAPA. - HELD THAT: - Having taken into account the charge-sheet, accompanying documents, CDR analysis, seized documents (including D-132/D-132(a), seizure memos and contact lists), statements of witnesses and the now taken on record redacted Section 164 statements, the Court concluded that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true. The Court emphasized that at the bail stage the court need not weigh evidence minutely but should form an opinion on broad probabilities from the totality of material; questions of detailed admissibility and credibility are matters for trial. On that basis the Designated Court's conclusion that the respondent was not entitled to bail was endorsed and the High Court order granting bail was set aside. [Paras 29, 34, 36, 37, 38]Taking the totality of materials into account, there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusation is prima facie true; the respondent is not entitled to bail under the proviso to Section 43D(5).Inadmissibility and evidentiary objections to be tested at trial - business records and Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act - inadmissibility issues to be decided at trial, not at bail stage - Whether documentary evidence (notably document D-132(a) and seized business papers) could be rejected as inadmissible at the bail stage. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that objections to admissibility (including contention that D-132(a) is not a book of account under Section 34 Evidence Act or that documents are otherwise inadmissible) cannot justify discarding such material at the bail stage. The appropriate course is to look at the contents of the documents and include them in the assessment of whether accusations are prima facie true; challenges to admissibility and credibility are matters for trial. The prosecution was not reliant on a single document; multiple seized documents and other material cumulatively informed the Designated Court's prima facie conclusion. [Paras 34, 35, 36]Documentary evidentiary objections do not warrant rejection of the material at the bail stage; admissibility and credibility are to be tested at trial.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed; the High Court judgment granting bail to the respondent is set aside and the Designated Court's order refusing bail is affirmed - on the view that, on the totality of the material presented with the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (including seized documents, CDRs and redacted Section 164 statements), there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true and the respondent is not entitled to bail under the proviso to Section 43D(5) UAPA.

2019 (4) TMI 145 - DELHI HIGH COURT Customs

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Court Upholds Decision Against Anti-Dumping Duties on AA Batteries
The court dismissed the petition challenging the Designated Authority's final findings recommending no imposition of anti-dumping duties on AA Dry Cell Batteries from China and Vietnam. The court upheld the DA's conclusions that the domestic industry was not materially injured, emphasizing the higher selling prices and profits earned by the domestic industry. It reiterated the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 and the Central Government's discretionary power to accept or reject anti-dumping duty recommendations. The court found no procedural irregularity or illegality in the DA's findings and upheld the recommendation against imposing anti-dumping duties.

Anti-dumping duty - material injury - disclosure of essential facts under Rule 16 - non-injurious price (NIP) v. net sales realization (NSR) - quasi-judicial function of the Designated Authority - recommendatory role of the Designated Authority - judicial review under Article 226Judicial review under Article 226 - quasi-judicial function of the Designated Authority - recommendatory role of the Designated Authority - Extent to which the High Court can interfere with the Designated Authority's negative final findings recommending no anti-dumping duty. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the Designated Authority (DA) performs quasi-judicial functions but its final findings are recommendatory and not binding on the Central Government. Section 9A and Rules 17-18 use discretionary language ('may'), evidencing that the Central Government may disagree with the DA and decline to impose duty. Prior decisions and statutory scheme distinguish the DA's investigatory/recommendatory role from the Central Government's sovereign decision to impose duty. Judicial interference under Article 226 is constrained; the court will not substitute its economic judgment for that of the DA/Central Government unless there is procedural illegality, perversity or failure to consider legally relevant factors. Absent such grounds, the court will not re examine the merits of the DA's economic conclusions. [Paras 26, 29, 30, 31]The Court refused to interfere with the DA's negative final findings in the absence of procedural irregularity or perversity in the DA's conduct.Disclosure of essential facts under Rule 16 - material injury - non-injurious price (NIP) v. net sales realization (NSR) - Whether contradictions between the DA's Disclosure Statement and its Final Findings, including reliance on NIP/NSR comparisons and other changed conclusions, rendered the Final Findings liable to be quashed. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the DA's reasoning and factual analysis and concluded that the DA had considered the legally relevant factors (volume of dumped imports, price effects including undercutting/underselling, production, capacity utilization, sales, inventories, profitability and threat). The presence of apparent differences between disclosure and final findings does not automatically invalidate the final decision where the authority has addressed the statutory parameters and no procedural unfairness or perverse conclusion is shown. The Court observed that the DA had explicitly noted dumping and positive dumping margins while simultaneously concluding that price and volume effects did not translate into material injury for the POI because domestic industry recorded higher net sales realization and significant profits and had not increased sales despite available capacity. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that these conclusions were unreasonable or perverse or that the DA violated disclosure obligations in a manner that prejudiced the parties. [Paras 9, 21, 40, 41]Differences between the Disclosure Statement and Final Findings did not warrant quashing the Final Findings where the DA had considered the statutory injury parameters and no procedural illegality or perversity was established.Anti-dumping duty - role of the Central Government under Rule 18 - period of investigation - Implication of the statutory scheme as to who decides imposition of anti-dumping duty and temporal scope of determinations. - HELD THAT: - The Court reiterated that only the Central Government may impose anti-dumping duty by notification within the statutory window after publication of DA's final findings. The DA's investigation and findings are tied to the defined period of investigation (POI) and the determinations relate solely to that period. The statutory framework contemplates time bound processes (including possible extension) and contemplates Central Government discretion; any attempt by the court to re-open or re-determine economic assessments beyond the permitted timelines would risk transgressing the statutory scheme and international obligations. [Paras 38, 39]The Court affirmed that imposition of anti-dumping duty is a Central Government decision within the statutory timeframe and that determinations are confined to the stated POI.Final Conclusion: The petition is dismissed. The High Court declined to interfere with the Designated Authority's negative final findings that no anti dumping duty was required for the POI (01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015), holding that the DA acted within the statutory scheme and that no procedural illegality or perversity was shown to justify judicial intervention.

2018 (12) TMI 1751 - ITAT DELHI Income Tax

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Invalid initiation of IT proceedings under Section 153C due to deficiencies. Assessments barred by limitation. Cross-examination denial nullifies proceedings.
The Tribunal found the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act invalid due to deficiencies in the satisfaction note and lack of ownership of seized documents by third parties. The assessments were barred by limitation, and the assumption of jurisdiction was deemed invalid. Cross-examination denial rendered assessment proceedings null. Additions under Section 68 were deleted, benefits under Sections 11 and 12 were allowed, and cancellation of registration under Section 12AA was inapplicable. The Tribunal upheld the principles of mutuality, concluding in favor of the assessee on multiple grounds.

Validity of satisfaction note under section 153C - requirement that seized documents 'belong to' the other person before section 153C proceedings - presumption of ownership arising from search under sections 132(4A)/292C limited to the searched person - admissibility and evidentiary value of loose sheets/computer printouts for third parties - violation of principles of natural justice by denial of opportunity to cross examine the declarant - jurisdictional consequence of framing reassessment beyond time limit under section 153B/153C - requirement of a warrant of authorisation for search and distinction between search (s.132) and survey (s.133A) - scope of assessment under sections 153A/153C - nexus with seized materialValidity of satisfaction note under section 153C - requirement that seized documents 'belong to' the other person before section 153C proceedings - scope of assessment under sections 153A/153C - nexus with seized material - Whether proceedings under section 153C/153A could be validly initiated on the basis of the documents seized from the premises of Shri R.K. Miglani/UPDA when those documents were not shown to belong to the assessee. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that section 153C requires the AO of the searched person first to rule out that seized books/documents belong to the searched person and to be satisfied that they belong to some other person before handing them over and permitting proceedings under section 153A in respect of that other person. The satisfaction notes in the present cases did not rebut the statutory presumption that documents found at the searched premises belong to the searched person; the notes were vague, mechanical and did not identify which documents belonged to which assessee. Where documents were seized from Shri R.K. Miglani/UPDA and the declarant admitted authorship of certain loose sheets, those documents could not be treated as belonging to the member distilleries. Reliance on mere tabulated production figures or unsigned/uncorroborated loose notings without any objective linkage to the assessee is insufficient to found jurisdiction under section 153C. The Tribunal, applying the principles in the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court decisions cited in the order, concluded that the Assessing Officers exceeded jurisdiction in initiating and framing assessments under sections 153C/153A on that basis, and accordingly annulled the assessments so initiated. [Paras 17, 19, 21, 47, 50]Assessments framed under section 153C read with section 153A on the basis of the impugned seized documents were without jurisdiction and are annulled.Presumption of ownership arising from search under sections 132(4A)/292C limited to the searched person - admissibility and evidentiary value of loose sheets/computer printouts for third parties - Whether the presumptions under sections 132(4A) and 292C and the seized loose papers/computer records could be treated as reliable evidence against third party assessees. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal analysed the statutory presumptions and held they operate in favour of the searched person (i.e. against the person in whose possession the material was found) and cannot be transposed onto third parties. The notings, loose sheets and computer extracts seized from UPDA/Miglani were of doubtful evidentiary value for attributing transactions to member distilleries: entries on loose papers are 'dumb' documents and, without independent corroborative evidence, cannot fix liability on third parties. The Tribunal relied upon the authority of the Supreme Court (V.C. Shukla, Common Cause) and relevant High Court decisions emphasizing that such loose entries/computer data lack reliability and cannot be the sole basis for additions in income tax proceedings against third parties. [Paras 31, 43, 103, 106, 108]Presumptions attendant to material found at the searched premises do not extend to third parties; loose sheets/computer printouts without independent corroboration are not admissible as sole foundation for tax liabilities of third party assessees.Violation of principles of natural justice by denial of opportunity to cross examine the declarant - Whether assessments relying on the statement of Shri R.K. Miglani recorded under section 132(4) are vitiated where the assessed parties were not afforded an opportunity to cross examine him. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that substantial adverse inferences and additions were based on the statement of Shri R.K. Miglani, yet the concerned assessees were not permitted to cross examine him despite requests. Judicial precedent was applied to hold that reliance on a witness's statement without affording the affected parties a proper opportunity to confront and cross examine amounts to breach of natural justice and renders the assessments void. The Tribunal emphasised that statements recorded under section 132(4) attract presumptions only against the searched person and that, in any event, denial of cross examination on which substantive findings rest is fatal. [Paras 61, 62, 64, 72]Assessments based on the declarant's statement where cross examination was denied are vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice and are to be quashed.Jurisdictional consequence of framing reassessment beyond time limit under section 153B/153C - Whether the assessment framed in the case of Lords Distillery (and related appellants) was barred by limitation under the time limits prescribed for assessments initiated on account of search/requisition. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined section 153B and its provisos which prescribe the period within which assessments under section 153A/153C are to be completed, including the nine months rule from the end of the financial year in which seized books/documents are handed over under section 153C. Considering the stay orders in writ proceedings and their limited effect, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment in the cited case was completed after expiry of the applicable limitation period and therefore was barred. The Tribunal followed authorities under which jurisdictional defects (including limitation) can be raised at any stage because they go to the root of the proceedings. [Paras 76, 81, 82, 85, 86]The assessment framed in the cited instance was time barred under section 153B/153C and is therefore invalid; the additional ground of limitation is admitted and allowed.Requirement of a warrant of authorisation for search and distinction between search (s.132) and survey (s.133A) - scope of assessment under sections 153A/153C - nexus with seized material - Whether UPDA premises were searched under section 132 so as to permit assessments under section 153A, or whether only a survey under section 133A was conducted (with consequence that assessments under section 153A would be invalid). - HELD THAT: - On scrutiny of the warrant of authorisation and the panchnama, the Tribunal found that the warrant of authorisation executed on 14.02.2006 related to the residence/premises of Shri R.K. Miglani (search under section 132) while the UPDA premises were subject to survey under section 133A. A warrant for search at the assessee's premises is a mandatory foundational requirement for invoking section 153A; where no search under section 132 was executed at the assessee's premises, assessments framed under section 153A are not sustainable. The Tribunal therefore held that assessments against UPDA under section 153A were bad in law. [Paras 192, 193, 194, 195, 199]Because the authorised search under section 132 was not executed at the assessee's premises and only survey proceedings under section 133A occurred at UPDA, assessments under section 153A in respect of UPDA are invalid.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and allowed the assessees' appeals and cross objections in the matters before it to the extent that (i) satisfaction notes and assessments under section 153C/153A founded on seized loose papers/computer data from Shri R.K. Miglani/UPDA were held to be legally unsustainable for want of requisite satisfaction, objective linkage and corroboration; (ii) statements of the searched person relied upon without affording cross examination to affected assessees rendered the proceedings vitiated; (iii) certain assessments were time barred under the statutory limitation applicable to search related proceedings; and (iv) where search was not executed at an assessee's premises (only survey conducted), assessments under section 153A could not be sustained. Consequently, impugned assessments were annulled or additions deleted and related appeals dismissed or allowed as recorded in the order.

2018 (12) TMI 1606 - ITAT DELHI Income Tax

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Tribunal Quashes Assessments, Emphasizes Legal Requirements in Tax Matters
The Tribunal quashed the assessments under Section 153C due to lack of jurisdiction, invalid satisfaction notes, and denial of natural justice. It also ordered deletion of additions under Section 68, affirmed principles of mutuality, and upheld benefits of Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal emphasized adherence to legal requirements and natural justice in tax assessments.

Validity of satisfaction note under section 153C - Interpretation of the expression "belong to" in section 153C (distinction between "belong to" and "relate to/pertain to") - Presumption as to ownership and truthfulness of documents found on search under section 132(4A)/section 292C - Evidentiary value and admissibility of loose papers, notebooks and computer/pen drive prints as basis for tax proceedings - Principles of natural justice - right to cross examine a declarant whose statement is relied upon - Time bar/limitation for assessments under section 153B in proceedings triggered by search/requisition and section 153C - Requirement of an actual search under section 132 at the premises for invoking section 153A - Nullity of assessment framed without jurisdictionValidity of satisfaction note under section 153C - Interpretation of the expression "belong to" in section 153C (distinction between "belong to" and "relate to/pertain to") - Whether the satisfaction notes recorded by the Assessing Officer met the statutory requirement to initiate proceedings under section 153C and whether the seized documents were shown to "belong to" the assessee - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined the satisfaction notes and the seized material and held that a prerequisite of section 153C is a clear satisfaction that seized books/documents do not belong to the searched person but "belong to" some other person. The satisfaction notes in these matters were general, mechanical and failed to rule out that the seized documents belonged to the searched person. The Tribunal found no cogent material establishing ownership of the impounded loose sheets/computer data by the assessees; many of the notings were in the handwriting of the searched person (Shri R.K. Miglani) or were maintained at UPDA. The Tribunal emphasised the legal distinction between a document "belonging to" a person and documents merely "relating to" or "pertaining to" that person, and noted that the legislative amendment replacing "belong to" with "relates to" is prospective (w.e.f. 01.06.2015) and inapplicable to the years under appeal. On this basis the Tribunal concluded that the statutory precondition for invoking section 153C was not satisfied and that proceedings initiated on that basis lacked jurisdiction.Satisfaction notes did not satisfy the legal requirement under section 153C; seized documents were not shown to "belong to" the assessees and proceedings under section 153C/153A are without jurisdiction and are annulled.Presumption as to ownership and truthfulness of documents found on search under section 132(4A)/section 292C - Whether the statutory presumptions under sections 132(4A) and 292C operate in favour of the Revenue against the assessees (third parties) where documents were seized from a searched third party - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that the presumptions in sections 132(4A) and 292C operate in respect of the person whose premises were actually searched (the 'searched person') and not in favour of third parties. Because the seized documents originated from the premises of Shri R.K. Miglani/UPDA, the presumptions would lie against them and not against the distilleries who are third parties. Accordingly, the Revenue could not rely upon those presumptions to establish that the documents "belonged to" the assessees without independent cogent material connecting the seized papers objectively to each assessee.Presumptions under sections 132(4A)/292C apply against the searched person (Miglani/UPDA) and do not by themselves validate initiation of proceedings under section 153C against the assessees.Evidentiary value and admissibility of loose papers, notebooks and computer/pen drive prints as basis for tax proceedings - Admissibility/evidentiary value of loose papers and seized documents - Whether the loose papers, notings, diaries and computer/pen drive extracts seized from the searched person/UPDA were admissible and reliable evidence to assess or reassess the assessees' income - HELD THAT: - Relying on settled authorities, the Tribunal held that random loose papers, computer printouts and isolated notings lack inherent reliability and cannot, without corroborative independent evidence, sustain additions or be the foundation for reassessment of a third party. The Tribunal emphasised that entries not maintained in the regular course of business are of doubtful evidentiary value and that correct or authentic entries still require independent proof of trustworthiness before fixing liability. The Revenue failed to produce corroborative material showing the end use of alleged collections or the identity of payees, and did not verify entries against the assessees' books or examine identified signatories; hence the seized material was insufficient to support the assessments.Loose sheets, diaries and similar seized material lacked requisite evidentiary value and could not validly sustain assessments/reassessments against the assessees; additions based solely on such material are unsustainable.Principles of natural justice - right to cross examine a declarant whose statement is relied upon - Whether denial of opportunity to cross examine Shri R.K. Miglani, whose statements under section 132(4) were relied upon, rendered the assessments unlawful - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal analysed authorities holding that reliance on the statement of a witness without giving the affected assessee an opportunity to cross examine that witness breaches principles of natural justice and can vitiate proceedings. In the cases before it, the Assessing Officer relied heavily on Miglani's statements yet did not allow the assessees to cross examine him; no independent verification was undertaken. The Tribunal found this omission a serious procedural infirmity which prejudiced the assessees and rendered the assessments nullities.Failure to permit cross examination of Shri R.K. Miglani, whose statement was a basis for the additions, violated natural justice and contributes to the annulment of the assessments.Time bar/limitation for assessments under section 153B in proceedings triggered by search/requisition and section 153C - Whether the assessment in Lords Distillery Limited was time barred under the time limits prescribed by section 153B - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal considered the statutory computation under section 153B and the period of stay granted by the High Court relating to jurisdictional transfer proceedings. It held that the assessing authority was required to complete the assessment within the statutory period applicable to cases triggered by search/requisition; after excluding only the period during which proceedings were stayed, the completed assessment dated 30.12.2008 fell beyond the prescribed limitation period. The Tribunal concluded that the assessment was barred by limitation and therefore void.Assessment framed on 30.12.2008 in Lords Distillery Limited was barred by limitation under section 153B and is invalid.Requirement of an actual search under section 132 at the premises for invoking section 153A - Whether assessments framed under section 153A in respect of UPDA were lawful where only survey under section 133A (and not a search under section 132) had been executed at the association's premises - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined Warrant(s) of Authorisation and panchnama and found that the warrant of search under section 132 was executed at the residence of Shri R.K. Miglani while the association (UPDA) premises were subject to survey under section 133A. Because section 153A applies where a search under section 132 (or requisition under 132A) is conducted, the Tribunal concluded that where no search under section 132 occurred at the association's premises, assessments framed under section 153A in respect of UPDA were not properly constituted. The Tribunal therefore quashed those assessments.Assessments under section 153A in respect of UPDA were invalid as no search under section 132 was conducted at the association's premises; survey under section 133A is not a substitute.Nullity of assessment framed without jurisdiction - Whether assessments and consequential proceedings founded upon the defective invocation of sections 153C/153A are void and liable to be annulled - HELD THAT: - Having found that statutory preconditions for section 153C were not met (no proper satisfaction that seized documents "belonged to" the assessees), that presumptions under section 132(4A)/292C do not operate in favour of third parties, that seized loose papers lacked independent evidentiary value, and that principles of natural justice were breached by denial of cross examination, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officers exceeded jurisdiction. Where jurisdictional foundations are absent, the assessments are nullities and cannot be allowed to stand; consequential orders founded thereon fall with them.Assessments and consequential proceedings initiated under section 153C/153A on the impugned seized material are without jurisdiction and are annulled as nullities.Administrative instruction - CBDT circular on monetary limit for filing appeals - Whether departmental appeals in certain years (Modi Industries) should be dismissed in view of the CBDT Circular fixing a monetary threshold for filing appeals - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal applied CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 which prescribes a monetary limit (Rs. 20 lakhs tax effect) for departmental appeals to the ITAT and directed dismissal of Revenue appeals where the tax effect fell below the prescribed threshold. The Tribunal noted the Revenue may seek recall if re verification shows a higher tax effect or an exception applies, subject to statutory timelines.Revenue appeals with tax effect below the CBDT prescribed limit are dismissed; Department may apply for recall where appropriate exceptions or higher tax effect are demonstrated.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal held that in the batch of appeals (Assessment Years 2001-02 to 2007-08) the Assessing Officers failed to satisfy statutory preconditions for invoking section 153C/153A: the satisfaction notes were vague and did not establish that seized documents "belonged to" the assessees; presumptions arising from search operate against the searched person (Miglani/UPDA) and not against third party assessees; loose papers and electronic extracts lacked independent evidentiary value absent corroboration; and denial of opportunity to cross examine the declarant rendered proceedings violative of natural justice. Consequent assessments founded on those materials were held to be without jurisdiction and were annulled. Additionally, certain assessments were held time barred and a subset of departmental appeals were dismissed under the CBDT monetary limit circular.

2018 (12) TMI 1502 - ITAT INDORE Income Tax

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Tribunal Decision: R&D Expenditures Allowed, Agricultural Expenses Added, Interest Disallowance Upheld.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claims for capital and revenue expenditures for R&D activities in full, rejected the apportionment by the CIT(A), and confirmed the addition for unaccounted agricultural expenses. It also upheld the deletion of the interest disallowance for advances to associate concerns. The appeals of the assessee were partly allowed, and those of the revenue were dismissed.

Deduction under section 35(1)(iv) - allowability of revenue research and development expenditure under section 37(1) - apportionment between agricultural (exempt) and commercial (taxable) income - one and indivisible business - no requirement of apportionment - disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) r.w.s. 40A(2)(b) - genuineness of expenditure and maintenance of books as basis for allowanceDeduction under section 35(1)(iv) - genuineness of expenditure and maintenance of books as basis for allowance - Allowability of capital expenditure claimed as scientific research and development under section 35(1)(iv) for Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10. - HELD THAT: - Tribunal held that the assessee, a seed development company with DSIR recognition, carried out genuine R&D activities and had acquired specialized buildings, plant and machinery for that purpose. The Assessing Officer's contrary conclusion was based on conjecture and failure to analyse records or visit the site. Section 35(1)(iv) requires capital expenditure to be of a capital nature and used for scientific research relating to the business; it does not require that the expenditure be exclusively for research. On the material placed (including detailed asset particulars, scientists' credentials, DSIR certificate and explanation of R&D processes), the claim for capital deduction was accepted and the Assessing Officer's disallowance set aside. The Tribunal accordingly allowed the capital R&D expenditure claimed for AY 2008 09 and AY 2009 10. [Paras 40]Claim of capital expenditure under section 35(1)(iv) allowed for Assessment Years 2008 09 and 2009 10.Allowability of revenue research and development expenditure under section 37(1) - one and indivisible business - no requirement of apportionment - genuineness of expenditure and maintenance of books as basis for allowance - Allowability of revenue R&D expenditure (claimed under section 37(1)) and correctness of first appellate authority's apportionment between agricultural (exempt) and commercial (taxable) income. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that the genuineness of the revenue R&D expenditure was not disputed and that the Assessing Officer's linkage of such expenditure to exempt agricultural income was conjectural. The CIT(A) had apportioned R&D expenditure between agricultural and commercial divisions on a turnover basis; the Tribunal held that apportionment was not sustainable in absence of specific material showing intentional mis allocation or that the business is divisible in that manner. Reliance was placed on precedents holding that where an indivisible business yields both taxable and exempt receipts, expenditure laid out for the business is allowable without ad hoc apportionment. Given audited books, detailed records and no finding of mala fides or bogus claims, the revenue R&D expenses were held allowable and the CIT(A)'s pro rata allocation set aside. [Paras 49]Revenue R&D expenditure allowed in full as business expenditure; CIT(A)'s apportionment between agricultural and commercial income set aside for both Assessment Years.Apportionment between agricultural (exempt) and commercial (taxable) income - disallowance as adjustment for disproportionate agricultural expenses - Validity of addition of Rs. 10,48,112 (AY 2008 09) made by Assessing Officer on account of allegedly disproportionate agricultural expenses. - HELD THAT: - Assessing Officer observed a decline in the percentage of agricultural expenses to agricultural receipts and disallowed part of the claim; CIT(A) sustained that disallowance. The Tribunal examined the assessee's explanations (change in seed variety, higher yields and prices) and the documentary record and concluded that the assessee failed to place concrete evidence to explain the reduced percentage of agricultural expenses when other commercial expenses rose. In absence of adequate documentary justification for the decrease, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the disallowance. [Paras 55]Addition of Rs. 10,48,112 for disproportionate agricultural expenses confirmed for AY 2008 09.Disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) r.w.s. 40A(2)(b) - commercial expediency of advances to subsidiaries - Sustainability of Assessing Officer's disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) r.w.s. 40A(2)(b) (AY 2009 10) for advances to associate/subsidiary concerns. - HELD THAT: - Assessing Officer disallowed interest treating certain advances to associates as interest free diversion of borrowed funds; CIT(A) deleted the addition. The Tribunal noted that advances related to regular business transactions (sales, rent, distributor financing and industry practice of advance supply to cultivators) and were supported by particulars showing adjustments and commercial purpose. Reliance was placed on precedent that interest on borrowed funds used commercially for related concerns may be allowable if advanced for commercial expediency. In these facts, no disallowance was warranted and the CIT(A)'s deletion was upheld. [Paras 62]Deletion of disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) r.w.s. 40A(2)(b) upheld for AY 2009 10.Final Conclusion: Tribunal allowed the assessee's claims for capital and revenue R&D expenditures (s.35(1)(iv) and s.37(1)) for AYs 2008 09 and 2009 10, set aside the CIT(A)'s apportionment of R&D expenses between agricultural and commercial activities, confirmed the Assessing Officer's disallowance of Rs. 10,48,112 as disproportionate agricultural expenses for AY 2008 09, and upheld deletion of the interest disallowance under s.36(1)(iii) r.w.s.40A(2)(b) for AY 2009 10; appeals accordingly disposed as recorded.

2018 (10) TMI 1635 - ITAT DELHI Income Tax

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Tribunal overturns additions under Section 153A, stresses cross-examination rights
The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, holding that the additions made under Section 153A were not justified due to the absence of incriminating material found during the search. The enhancement of income by the CIT(A) was deleted as it was beyond jurisdiction. The Tribunal stressed the importance of providing an opportunity for cross-examination and adhering to the principles of natural justice.

Jurisdiction under Section 153A - incriminating material emanating from search - scope of assessment in unabated years - presumption under section 132(4A)/292C - right to cross-examination and principles of natural justice - preponderance of probabilities - appellate enhancement and jurisdiction under section 251Admission of new legal grounds - National Thermal Power Corporation principle on Tribunal's power to consider questions of law - Admission of additional legal grounds raised before the Tribunal - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal admitted additional grounds raised by the assessee as they were purely legal, went to the root of the matter and relied on material already on record. The Tribunal applied the principle that the forum has discretion to allow new legal grounds where resolution of a question of law arising from facts on record is necessary for correct adjudication, and specifically relied on the Apex Court's approach in National Thermal Power Corporation to admit such grounds. The admitted grounds included challenge to the jurisdiction exercised under Section 153A in respect of unabated assessment years where no incriminating material pertaining to those years was found during search.Additional legal grounds were admitted.Jurisdiction under Section 153A - incriminating material emanating from search - scope of assessment in unabated years - Validity of reopening / additions under Section 153A for completed (unabated) assessment years in absence of incriminating material emanating from the search - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that where assessments for the years in question had attained finality (so were unabated) on the date of search, Section 153A could be invoked to reopen or reassess those years only if there was incriminating material emanating from the search in the assessee's case that related to those years. The Tribunal examined the record and concluded that no incriminating material was found/seized from the assessee's premises for AYs 2010-11 to 2012-13; the department's case rested on statements and documents seized from third parties and on post-search material, statements which were retracted or for which cross-examination was not effectively afforded. Applying the consistent line of authority that completed assessments cannot be interfered with under Section 153A without incriminating material relatable to those years, and having regard to CBDT instructions and relevant case law, the Tribunal found the additions under Section 153A to be unsustainable and deleted them.Additions and reassessments for AYs 2010-11 to 2012-13 made under Section 153A in the absence of incriminating material emanating from the search were held invalid and deleted.Right to cross-examination and principles of natural justice - reliability of statements recorded under Section 132(4) - Evidentiary value of third party statements recorded under Section 132(4) when assessee was not afforded effective opportunity to cross examine and when such statements were retracted - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal emphasised that statements recorded during search proceedings cannot be used to sustain additions against an assessee where those statements were relied upon without giving the assessee an effective opportunity of cross-examination, particularly where witnesses later retracted or gave inconsistent versions. Reliance solely on third party statements or documents seized from third parties, absent corroborating incriminating material emanating from the search in the assessee's own case, is insufficient to justify additions under Section 153A. The Tribunal applied principles from CBDT circulars and judicial decisions stressing natural justice and the limited operation of presumptions under section 132(4A)/292C against third parties.Statements of third parties recorded under Section 132(4) and documents seized from third parties could not sustain the impugned additions where cross examination was not effectively afforded and the statements were retracted; such material was insufficient to support reassessment for unabated years.Appellate enhancement and jurisdiction under section 251 - assessment cannot be enhanced by introducing a new source outside the subject matter of original assessment - Validity of CIT(A)'s enhancement of income by assessing new sources beyond the subject matter of the assessment appealed against - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) acted beyond jurisdiction under section 251 by enhancing income on the basis of new sources that were not part of the AO's assessment or the subject matter of the appeal, particularly where such enhancement relied on material that did not constitute incriminating material found in the assessee's search. Relying on settled authorities that the first appellate authority cannot introduce new sources of income outside the record, the Tribunal deleted the enhancement made by the CIT(A).Enhancement of income by the CIT(A) on new sources outside the record of assessment/appeal was held to be beyond jurisdiction and deleted.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional legal grounds and, on the merits of the admitted legal question, held that for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 (which were unabated on the date of search) additions and enhancements sustained under Section 153A were unsustainable because no incriminating material emanating from the search in the assessee's case linked to those years was found; third party statements and documents seized from others, relied upon without effective opportunity for cross examination and where retractions occurred, could not support reassessment or enhancement. The appeals were allowed and the impugned additions/enhancements deleted.

2018 (9) TMI 1733 - Supreme Court Indian Laws

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Issues: (i) Whether the Aadhaar Act and its requirements for collection of demographic and biometric information violate the fundamental right to privacy; (ii) Whether collection, storage, retention, use and sharing of Aadhaar data and the authentication architecture effectuate impermissible mass surveillance; (iii) Whether Section 7 (proof of Aadhaar for receipt of subsidies/benefits/services) is constitutional and whether socio-economic entitlements can override privacy; (iv) Whether provisions restricting sharing (Section 29), disclosure (Section 33), penalties and cognizance (Section 47) are constitutional; (v) Whether Section 57 permitting use of Aadhaar beyond the Act is constitutional; (vi) Whether Section 59 validating prior executive acts is valid; (vii) Whether regulations concerning children, PMLA Rule 9 (as amended), Telecom circular (23.03.2017), Money Bill certification, and Section 139-AA of Income-tax Act are constitutionally valid.

Issue (i): Whether the Aadhaar Act and its requirement to furnish demographic and biometric information violates the right to privacy.

Analysis: The statutory scheme authorises enrolment, storage and authentication of specified demographic and biometric data; contains provisions on security, confidentiality, restrictions on sharing and criminal penalties; and is subject to regulations. Application of the three-fold Puttaswamy test (lawfulness, legitimate state aim, proportionality) requires assessment of the enacted provisions and regulatory safeguards against arbitrariness and disproportionate intrusion.

Conclusion: Requirement to provide demographic and biometric information under the Aadhaar Act does not violate the fundamental right to privacy; the provisions and regulations satisfy the three-fold test and are constitutional.

Issue (ii): Whether collection, storage, retention, use and sharing of Aadhaar data and authentication architecture create an impermissible surveillance regime.

Analysis: The statute and regulations limit collection items, prohibit sharing of core biometric data, restrict storage of purpose, mandate security measures, prescribe limited retention of authentication logs and criminalise unauthorised disclosure; meta-data retained is technical and purpose-storage is prohibited. International precedents on data retention and surveillance inform proportionality analysis but do not control statutory design here.

Conclusion: The Act and Regulations, as constituted, do not create an architecture for pervasive surveillance; collection, storage and retention as provided do not breach the right to privacy.

Issue (iii): Whether Section 7 (conditioning receipt of subsidies/benefits/services on Aadhaar authentication) is unconstitutional or overrides socio-economic rights.

Analysis: Section 7 is an enabling statutory power limited to schemes funded from the Consolidated Fund and includes provisos requiring alternate/viable means where Aadhaar is not assigned. The legislative objective of targeted delivery and prevention of leakage in welfare disbursement is a legitimate State aim. Implementation shortcomings and instances of exclusion require administrative remedy but do not render the provision inherently arbitrary.

Conclusion: Section 7 is constitutional; provisioning of welfare entitlements does not take precedence so as to nullify privacy protections and the provision satisfies proportionality.

Issue (iv): Whether Sections restricting sharing (Section 29), permitting disclosure on judicial/national security orders (Section 33), and Section 47 (cognizance limited to Authority) are unconstitutional.

Analysis: Section 29 prohibits sharing of core biometric data and conditions other sharing on Act/Regulations and consent; Section 33 allows disclosure only on court order not inferior to District Judge or by specified high-level national security direction with oversight; Section 47 confines cognizance of Aadhaar offences to complaints by the Authority or authorised officers, comparable to provisions in other special statutes and balanced by general criminal remedies under other laws (e.g., IT Act).

Conclusion: Sections 29 and 33 are constitutional and proportionate; Section 47 is not unconstitutional and falls within legislative design for specialised enforcement and prevention of frivolous prosecutions.

Issue (v): Whether Section 57 permitting use of Aadhaar "for any purpose" including by private parties or pursuant to contracts is constitutional.

Analysis: Section 57 permits use of Aadhaar for establishing identity "pursuant to any law" or contract but makes such use subject to Section 8 and Chapter VI safeguards. Use "pursuant to any law" presupposes a valid legislative basis subject to privacy scrutiny. Use by contract alone (i.e., without a legislative mandate) would permit unregulated private adoption and lacks the necessary statutory safeguards and proportionality review.

Conclusion: Section 57 is constitutional only insofar as use is pursuant to law and subject to statutory safeguards; the phrase "or any contract to this effect" is struck down as unconstitutional.

Issue (vi): Whether Section 59 (deeming prior executive actions valid under the Act) is void.

Analysis: Section 59 is a legislative deeming provision validating actions taken under earlier executive notifications by treating them as done under the Act; legislative bodies may enact retrospective validating provisions when within constitutional competence, subject to limits of constitutionality.

Conclusion: Section 59 validly validates prior actions under the stated notifications and is constitutional within the scope of legislative power and statutory interpretation.

Issue (vii): Whether consent and parental-protection requirements and specific subordinate instruments are constitutional: (a) enrolment of children 518; (b) Rule 9 (PMLA Second Amendment, 2017); (c) DoT circular 23.03.2017; (d) Money Bill certification; (e) Section 139-AA Income-tax Act.

Analysis: (a) Regulations require parental/guardian consent for minors; reading parental consent into the enrolment scheme preserves constitutionality for ages 518. (b) Amended Rule 9 imposes identity/verification obligations on reporting entities (including Aadhaar authentication) to prevent money-laundering and shell/ghost accounts; measures are targeted, time-limited for account verification, and permit limited exceptions; proportionality and legitimate State aims (anti-money-laundering, financial integrity) are satisfied. (c) The DoT circular mandated mass re-verification of existing mobile subscribers by Aadhaar e-KYC; executive circulars are not legislative "law" under Part III and the circular lacked independent statutory backing for compulsory re-verification; absent statutory authorisation the circular is unconstitutional and set aside. (d) The Aadhaar Act's core objective relates to delivery of subsidies/services from the Consolidated Fund; provisions fall within Article 110(1)(c)/(e) and incidental matters in (g); certification as a Money Bill was sustainabled on merits, but certification by the Speaker is amenable to judicial review for substantive illegality; here the certification was upheld. (e) Section 139-AA (linking Aadhaar with PAN) pursues legitimate fiscal and anti-evasion aims and, subject to privacy proportionality, is constitutionally valid.

Conclusion: (a) Parental consent must apply for enrolment of children 518; (b) Rule 9 as amended is constitutional and not ultra vires PMLA; (c) DoT circular dated 23.03.2017 is unconstitutional and set aside; (d) Aadhaar Act properly fits within Money Bill parameters and certification is judicially reviewable but here is upheld on substance; (e) Section 139-AA does not violate the right to privacy.

Final Conclusion: The Aadhaar Act and the framed Regulations (with the reading-in for parental consent) are, in their operative parts, constitutionally valid under the three-fold privacy test and proportionality analysis; targeted uses for welfare delivery, financial integrity and law enforcement are legitimate and proportionate when subject to the statutory safeguards and oversight specified in the Act and Regulations. The contract-based authorization in Section 57 is severed; the DoT circular of 23.03.2017 is quashed; prior executive actions are validated by Section 59; subordinate instruments and rules are otherwise sustained where consistent with statutory safeguards.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory scheme authorising collection and authentication of limited biometric and demographic identifiers for legitimate State aims (targeted welfare delivery, financial integrity and crime prevention) is constitutional if enacted lawfully, pursues legitimate aims, and employs proportionate, statutory safeguards (including limits on sharing, retention, security obligations, oversight for disclosures and remedies); absent statutory mandate, executive instruments imposing compulsory biometric-based re-verification are invalid.

Aadhaar project and Act upheld as valid, no surveillance state created through purpose-blind minimal data collection
SC upheld the validity of the Aadhaar project and Aadhaar Act against privacy challenges. The court held that Aadhaar's architecture does not create a surveillance state as it operates in a purpose-blind manner, collecting only minimal biometric data without transaction details, purpose, or location information. The system includes sufficient security measures making it difficult to create individual profiles from stored biometric and demographic data in CIDR.

Right to privacy as a fundamental right - three-fold proportionality test - legitimate State interest in targeted delivery of subsidies - data collection, storage and retention safeguards - restrictions on sharing and disclosure of biometric information - judicial oversight of disclosure for court order and national security - penal and cognizance provisions limiting complainant to the Authority - saving/validating retrospective deeming provision - parental consent for minor enrolment - use of Aadhaar for non-State purposes and contractual use - Aadhaar linkage for financial due diligence and anti-money laundering - administrative directions versus 'law' under Part III - Money Bill certification and judicial reviewRight to privacy as a fundamental right - three-fold proportionality test - Constitutionality of requirement to provide demographic and core biometric information for Aadhaar enrolment - HELD THAT: - The Court held that requiring demographic and biometric information for enrolment is lawful and does not violate the fundamental right to privacy. The enactment and regulatory regime satisfy the three-fold test (existence of law, legitimate State aim and proportionality) articulated in K.S. Puttaswamy, and biometric data as envisaged (photograph, fingerprints, iris) is not disproportionate to the legislative objective of unique identification for targeted delivery of benefits.Requirement to provide demographic and biometric information for Aadhaar enrolment is constitutional.Data collection, storage and retention safeguards - restrictions on sharing and disclosure of biometric information - Validity of statutory scheme governing collection, storage, retention, use and sharing of Aadhaar data - HELD THAT: - The Act and the Regulations create a statutory architecture with specific safeguards (security obligations, prohibition on sharing core biometric data, regulated sharing of other identity information, limits on retention and audit/log requirements). Applying proportionality and examining technical and organisational safeguards, the Court found these provisions adequate to protect privacy rights and rejected the contention that the scheme creates pervasive surveillance.Provisions governing collection, storage, retention, use and sharing of Aadhaar data are constitutional.Aadhaar Act does not create architecture for pervasive surveillance - meta-data and purpose blindness - Whether Aadhaar architecture enables pervasive state surveillance - HELD THAT: - Having considered the form and content of authentication records, logs and regulatory restrictions (including prohibition on purpose-storage and the expressed inability to store purpose of authentication), the Court concluded that the statutory and regulatory design does not amount to an architecture for pervasive surveillance and that meta-data retained is technical and not purpose-tracking in the manner alleged.Aadhaar Act does not create an architecture for pervasive surveillance.Restriction on sharing information - consent and regulated disclosure - Constitutionality of Section 29 (restriction on sharing information) - HELD THAT: - Section 29 prohibits sharing of core biometric information and permits sharing of other identity information only as provided by the Act and Regulations; it further restricts requesting entities from using or disclosing identity information except as specified or with consent. The Court held that Section 29 is regulatory, protective of privacy, and proportionate to legitimate aims; it is not liable to be struck down.Section 29 is constitutional.Disclosure of information pursuant to court order and national security - Article 20(3) and testimonial compulsion - Constitutionality of Section 33 (exceptions for disclosure to courts and in national security) - HELD THAT: - Section 33 permits disclosure only pursuant to a court order not inferior to that of a District Judge or under specified senior executive directions in national security with oversight and time limits. The Court found these safeguards reasonable; disclosure under Section 33 does not engage Article 20(3) protection against self-incrimination in a manner that renders the provision unconstitutional.Section 33 is constitutional and does not violate Article 20(3).Penalties and cognizance by Authority - special Acts limiting private complaints - Constitutionality of Section 47 (cognizance only on complaint by Authority) - HELD THAT: - Section 47 restricts cognizance of Aadhaar Act offences to complaints made by the Authority or authorised officers. The Court observed that similar provisions exist in many statutory schemes, that the limitation serves legitimate enforcement and anti-frivolity aims, and that other criminal remedies under general statutes (including IT Act offences) remain available; therefore Section 47 is not unconstitutional.Section 47 is constitutional.Use of Aadhaar for other purposes - limits of contractual authorization - Validity of Section 57 insofar as it permits use of Aadhaar 'pursuant to any contract' - HELD THAT: - Section 57 permits Aadhaar use pursuant to law, or contracts; the Court held that use pursuant to valid law is permissible subject to Section 8 and Chapter VI safeguards. However, permitting use merely pursuant to private contracts (the phrase 'or any contract to this effect') lacks the requisite backing of law and proportional safeguards and is therefore unconstitutional to that extent. The offending contractual clause was struck down while leaving the remainder of Section 57 operative for uses pursuant to statute.Section 57 is constitutional except insofar as it allows use of Aadhaar 'pursuant to any contract', which is struck down.Retrospective validation / deeming provision - Section 59 savings - Validity and effect of Section 59 (deeming past executive actions valid under the Act) - HELD THAT: - Section 59 retrospectively deems actions taken under earlier executive notifications to have been validly done under the Act. The Court applied established principles on legislative validating or curative statutes and held that Parliament may create such a legal fiction to validate prior executive acts; Section 59 validly saves actions taken under the cited notifications.Section 59 is valid and deems prior actions under the cited notifications to be valid under the Aadhaar Act.Parental consent for minor enrolment - consent in enrolment regulations - Constitutionality of collecting identity information of children aged 5-18 years - HELD THAT: - Regulations already provide special measures for children below five; the Court read parental/guardian consent into the enrolment regime for children aged 5-18 to safeguard minors and to maintain constitutionality of the Enrolment and Update Regulations in relation to that age-group.Parental/guardian consent is required for enrolment of children aged 5-18; Regulations are to be read accordingly.PMLA customer identification and Aadhaar e-KYC - Aadhaar for anti-money-laundering - Validity of Rule 9 as amended by Prevention of Money-Laundering (Second Amendment) Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT: - Amendments require specified identity proofs (including Aadhaar where eligible) for reporting entities and impose transitional/time-bound compliance requirements; the Court found the amendments to pursue legitimate AML and fiscal objectives, to be proportionate and within rule-making power, and not violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 or 300A or of the Aadhaar Act or PMLA.Rule 9 as amended by the PMLA (Second Amendment) Rules, 2017 is constitutional.Administrative circulars versus 'law' - e-KYC re-verification of existing subscribers - Validity of Department of Telecommunications circular dated 23.03.2017 mandating Aadhaar-based e-KYC re-verification of all existing mobile subscribers - HELD THAT: - The circular was an executive instruction implementing an administrative plan and relied on a Court disposition describing an undertaking; it was not a statute or rule backed by the Aadhaar Act or some other statutory authorisation; the Court held that the circular is not 'law' under Part III and cannot compel Aadhaar re-verification of existing subscribers absent valid legislative authority and therefore set aside the circular.The 23.03.2017 DoT circular is unconstitutional and is set aside.Money Bill certification - judicial review of Speaker's certification - Whether Aadhaar Act was properly enacted as a Money Bill and whether Speaker's certification is immune from judicial review - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the Aadhaar Act's core object - enabling identity-based conditioning of subsidies/benefits drawn from the Consolidated Fund - falls within Article 110(1)(c) and (e); incidental provisions fall within clause (g). Importantly, the Court rejected the notion that Speaker's certification is absolutely immune: certification is amenable to judicial review where constitutionally relevant illegality is alleged. On merits, the Aadhaar Bill could be validly treated as a Money Bill.Aadhaar Act was validly certified as a Money Bill; certification is subject to judicial review but here the certification did not infringe constitutional limits.Linking Aadhaar and PAN (Section 139-AA) - proportionality and legitimate aim in fiscal regulation - Constitutionality of Section 139 AA of the Income tax Act requiring Aadhaar linkage for PAN and related obligations - HELD THAT: - Section 139 AA pursues legitimate fiscal and anti-evasion objectives (eliminating duplicate PANs, curbing black money and tax evasion). Applying the Puttaswamy proportionality framework and related precedent, the Court found Section 139 AA to be a lawful measure that does not, on its face, violate the right to privacy.Section 139 AA does not violate the right to privacy and is constitutional.Interim judicial orders and subsequent legislation - voluntariness of Aadhaar enrolment - Whether the Aadhaar Act violates interim orders previously issued in these proceedings (e.g., that Aadhaar enrolment/use be voluntary) - HELD THAT: - Interim directions earlier issued dealt with an administrative scheme predating the Act; Parliament subsequently enacted a statutory regime that provides legal sanction and safeguards. The Court held that enactment of the Aadhaar Act does not offend those interim orders such that the Act must be struck down, and that legislation may supersede or regularise earlier executive practices.The Aadhaar Act does not contravene earlier interim orders in the petitions; it regularises the scheme under statute.Criminal disclosure orders and Section 33 - limits on disclosure by subordinate magistrates - Validity of lower court order (Judicial Magistrate First Class) directing UIDAI to disclose biometric data to investigating agency - HELD THAT: - Section 33(1) permits disclosure only pursuant to an order of a court not inferior to that of a District Judge; an order by a Judicial Magistrate First Class therefore exceeded the statutory threshold. The Court set aside the Magistrate's order and related High Court order that sustained it.Order of Judicial Magistrate First Class directing disclosure to investigating agency is set aside; Section 33 requires higher-court order for disclosure.Contempt applications - Whether contempt proceedings arising in these matters should be pursued - HELD THAT: - Having examined the record and the reliefs granted, the Court found no basis to proceed with contempt prosecutions arising in relation to these matters and dismissed the contempt petitions.All contempt petitions are dismissed/closed.Final Conclusion: The Constitution Bench upholds the Aadhaar enactment and its principal regulatory framework as constitutional subject to specific read downs and directions: demographic and biometric enrolment requirements, data security, retention and restricted sharing provisions survive constitutional challenge; Section 57 is severed to the extent it permitted use of Aadhaar merely 'pursuant to any contract'; Section 59 validly saves prior executive actions; parental consent must be read into enrolment of minors aged 5-18; Rule 9 under PMLA (2017) stands; the DoT circular of 23.03.2017 is set aside; certification of the Aadhaar Bill as a Money Bill is amenable to judicial review but, on merits, held valid; orders below requiring disclosure by subordinate magistrates are set aside; and related contempt proceedings are dismissed.

2018 (9) TMI 1794 - Supreme Court Indian Laws

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Issues: (i) Whether Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was unconstitutional insofar as it criminalised consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex in private; (ii) whether the impugned provision violated Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and (iii) whether the earlier decision upholding the provision required reconsideration and overruling.

Issue (i): Whether Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was unconstitutional insofar as it criminalised consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex in private.

Analysis: The provision, though facially framed in terms of acts, in operation burdened sexual minorities and criminalised consensual intimacy between adults. The Court held that consensual same-sex intimacy forms part of sexual orientation and personal identity, and that the State has no legitimate basis to intrude into such private, non-harmful conduct between adults.

Conclusion: Section 377 was held unconstitutional to the extent it criminalised consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex in private.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned provision violated Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court held that the provision was constitutionally infirm because it lacked a rational and intelligible basis as applied to consensual adult intimacy, operated in a manifestly arbitrary manner, and entrenched stereotypes and discriminatory treatment based on sexual orientation. It also held that sexual orientation is intrinsic to privacy, autonomy, dignity, freedom of expression, and equal citizenship, and that criminalisation of consensual same-sex conduct infringed these guarantees.

Conclusion: The provision was held violative of Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India in its application to consensual same-sex conduct between adults.

Issue (iii): Whether the earlier decision upholding the provision required reconsideration and overruling.

Analysis: The Court held that the earlier reasoning failed to account for the constitutional protection of sexual orientation, the effect of the provision on dignity and privacy, and the expanded understanding of equality and non-discrimination. It therefore could not stand in light of later constitutional developments.

Conclusion: The earlier decision was overruled.

Final Conclusion: Consensual same-sex intimacy between adults was protected as a matter of constitutional liberty, privacy, dignity and equality, and the criminal law could not be used to stigmatise or penalise such private conduct.

Ratio Decidendi: Criminalisation of consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex is unconstitutional because sexual orientation is an integral facet of identity protected by equality, privacy, dignity and autonomy, and the State cannot justify penal intrusion into such private conduct on the basis of majoritarian morality.

Consensual same-sex intimacy protected by constitutional rights; criminalisation of private adult conduct was struck down in part.
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was held unconstitutional to the extent it criminalised consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults in private, because sexual orientation is an intrinsic part of identity and the State had no legitimate basis to penalise non-harmful private intimacy. The provision was also found to violate Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 as applied to such conduct, since it lacked a rational basis, operated in a discriminatory and arbitrary manner, and infringed privacy, dignity, autonomy, expression and equal citizenship. The earlier contrary decision was overruled.

Right to privacy - Right to dignity - Sexual orientation as an intrinsic attribute of identity - Consensual sexual conduct between adults in private - Manifest arbitrariness - Discrimination on the ground of sex/sexual orientation - Constitutional morality - Transformative constitutionalism - Application of Articles 14, 15 and 21Consensual sexual conduct between adults in private - Right to privacy - Right to dignity - Application of Articles 14, 15 and 21 - Validity of Section 377 IPC insofar as it criminalises consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex - HELD THAT: - The Court held that sexual orientation is an intrinsic facet of identity and that consensual sexual conduct between adults in private engages and is protected by the rights to privacy, dignity and life under Article 21. Section 377, as interpreted to criminalise consensual same sex intimacy, operates to stigmatise and marginalise LGBT persons, interferes with decisional autonomy and private intimacy, and impedes access to health and other constitutional entitlements. The provision's textual vagueness and its operation in practice create an impermissible classification and a chilling effect on fundamental freedoms. Having regard to substantive equality and the doctrine of manifest arbitrariness, the part of Section 377 that penalises consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex is incompatible with Articles 14, 15 and 21 and must be read down to exclude such consensual private conduct. [Paras 149, 150, 151, 152, 156]Section 377 IPC is unconstitutional insofar as it criminalises consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex; such conduct is protected by Articles 14, 15 and 21.Manifest arbitrariness - Constitutional morality - Transformative constitutionalism - Effect of this decision on the two Judge Bench precedent in Suresh Kumar Koushal - HELD THAT: - The Court reviewed Koushal and concluded that its reasoning was flawed insofar as it sustained the criminalisation of consensual same sex relations by treating Section 377 as a neutral prohibition of acts rather than recognising its discriminatory effect and substantive impact on constitutional rights. In light of the analysis grounded on constitutional morality, privacy, dignity, equality and transformative constitutionalism, the Court overruled Koushal to the extent it upheld the criminalisation of consensual adult same sex intimacy, and declared that the precedential holding sustaining that part of Section 377 no longer stands. [Paras 19, 156]The decision in Suresh Kumar Koushal is overruled insofar as it upheld Section 377's application to consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex.Final Conclusion: The reference is answered: Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is read down and declared unconstitutional insofar as it criminalises consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex; members of the LGBT community are entitled to the full protection of Articles 14, 15 and 21, and the Court overrules the contrary aspects of Suresh Kumar Koushal.

2018 (8) TMI 1834 - ITAT AHMEDABAD Income Tax

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Tribunal allows appeal, rejects TPO's adjustment, upholds TNMM method. No separate adjustments justified.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the upward adjustment of Rs. 79,13,290/- made by the TPO. The decision was based on the acceptance of the TNMM method, which accounted for all costs, including notional interest on receivables. The Tribunal found no justification for separate adjustments once TNMM was accepted, referencing previous decisions and ruling in favor of the assessee.

Arm's length price - Notional interest on delayed realization of receivables - Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) - International transaction including receivables under the explanation to section 92B - Comparable credit period and comparability of transactions - External CUP benchmarking of interestNotional interest on delayed realization of receivables - Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) - Arm's length price - Comparable credit period and comparability of transactions - Whether an upward transfer pricing adjustment for notional interest on delayed realization of receivables from associated enterprises is warranted where the exports have been benchmarked using TNMM and no comparable independent-transaction credit period exists - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal upheld the assessee's contention that where the arm's length price of exports to associated enterprises has been determined and accepted on the basis of Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM), the net margin thereby accepted already incorporates the financial impact of delayed realisation of receivables and related time value of money. Making a separate notional interest adjustment in such circumstances would amount to double counting. A separate adjustment for delayed realisation can only be made where the credit period allowed to AEs is materially in excess of that allowed to independent enterprises for the same or materially similar transactions; in the absence of comparable transactions of similar goods and credit terms, no reliable benchmark exists to justify an ALP adjustment. The Tribunal followed the coordinate-bench precedent in the assessee's own case and related authorities holding that where TNMM is applied and accepted, interest on debtors is integral to operating income and is not a standalone international transaction warranting an independent adjustment. On these grounds the impugned upward adjustment was deleted. [Paras 6, 7]Following the coordinate-bench precedents and on the facts, the ALP adjustment for notional interest on delayed realisation of receivables is deleted and the appeal is allowed.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal and deleted the upward transfer-pricing adjustment made for notional interest on delayed realisation of receivables, holding that where TNMM has been applied and accepted and no comparable independent-credit-period for similar transactions exists, a separate interest adjustment is not warranted.

2018 (7) TMI 1955 - ITAT NEW DELHI Income Tax

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Tribunal remands case for fresh adjudication, emphasizing fair opportunity, procedural errors, and correct tax law application.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and remanded various issues back to the DRP/Assessing Officer/TPO for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed reconsideration of the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) over Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) Method, disallowed expenses, and addressed procedural errors, emphasizing principles of natural justice and correct application of tax laws. The decision aimed at providing the appellant with a fair opportunity to present their case and ensuring proper assessment in line with previous rulings.

Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) - Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method - Arm's length price - Transfer pricing adjustment - Deductibility under section 37(1) - Section 42 and Production Sharing Contracts - Head office expenses and section 44C - Depreciation and depletion - Interest - advance tax and sections 234B/234C - Principles of natural justice - Remand to Assessing Officer/DRPTransactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) - Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method - Arm's length price - Transfer pricing adjustment - Remand to Assessing Officer/DRP - Adjustment in respect of intra group services and choice/applicability of TP method - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that an identical issue had arisen and been dealt with in the assessee's own earlier proceedings. Following the coordinate Bench's decision, the Tribunal restored the intra group services benchmarking issue to the file of the Dispute Resolution Panel for fresh adjudication and directed reassessment in light of the decision that TNMM should be considered as the most appropriate method and that the assessee be afforded an opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal therefore did not finally determine the arm's length adjustment on intra group services but allowed the related grounds for statistical purposes and remitted the matter to the DRP for fresh decision in accordance with the coordinate Bench ruling. [Paras 13, 14, 15]Issue restored to the DRP for fresh adjudication; grounds relating to intra group services allowed for statistical purposes.Arm's length price - Transfer pricing adjustment - Remand to Assessing Officer/DRP - Transfer pricing adjustment in respect of interest on borrowings from associated enterprise - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the immediately preceding assessment year which had set aside the AO/TPO determination and directed fresh examination under section 92C, taking into account the agreements, prevailing economic conditions, relevant commercial factors and evidence placed by the assessee. Applying that precedent, the Tribunal restored the interest benchmarking issue to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration and directed that the assessee be given proper opportunity to demonstrate that the interest was at arm's length. [Paras 23, 24]Issue remitted to Assessing Officer/TPO for fresh determination in light of the Tribunal's earlier directions; grounds 2 to 8 allowed for statistical purposes.Deductibility under section 37(1) - Section 42 and Production Sharing Contracts - Disallowance of branch office (exploration and business development) expenditure treated as pre operative - HELD THAT: - Applying the Tribunal's own precedent in the immediately preceding year, the Bench held that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the assessee's business of prospecting, exploration and production and therefore constituted allowable revenue expenditure. The AO/TPO/DRP's reasoning that expenses not shared by JV partners or incurred for future projects would be pre operative was rejected; the Tribunal found no provision that non sharing by JV partners converts legitimately incurred business expenditure into non deductible amounts. The Tribunal directed deletion of the disallowance. [Paras 31, 35, 36, 37]Disallowance of branch office expenditure deleted; ground allowed in favour of the assessee.Section 42 and Production Sharing Contracts - Deductibility under section 37(1) - Disallowance of expenditure incurred on non producing PSCs - HELD THAT: - Relying on the Tribunal's coordinate Bench decisions, the Tribunal held that section 42 does not exclude the allowance of other deductions available under the Act where expenditures are incurred in furtherance of the existing business. Since the assessee had produced details showing expenses were incurred for business purposes and there was no dispute on incurrence, the AO/DRP's disallowance for non producing PSC expenditure was not sustainable and was ordered to be deleted. [Paras 38, 45]Disallowance of expenditure on non producing PSCs deleted; ground allowed in favour of the assessee.Deductibility under section 37(1) - Section 42 and Production Sharing Contracts - Exploration expenditure written off (abortive/infra structural costs) disallowed by AO - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal treated this issue as identical to the branch office/exploration expenditure issues decided in the preceding paragraphs and, following the same reasoning and precedents (including ONGC Videsh Ltd.), held that such exploration/write off items were revenue in nature and incurred wholly and exclusively for the business. Consequently the disallowance was set aside. [Paras 46, 49, 52, 53]Disallowance of exploration expenditure written off deleted; ground allowed in favour of the assessee.Head office expenses and section 44C - Remand to Assessing Officer/DRP - Treatment of payments to group company (BGIL) as head office expenditure under section 44C - HELD THAT: - Although the Tribunal noted factual contentions that payments to BGIL were for specific services and reimbursements (and that section 44C applies only to head office expenditure), the AO/DRP had not had the benefit of the Tribunal's earlier order. In the interest of justice the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication in light of the coordinate Bench's decision, directing reconsideration and giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. [Paras 54, 57, 60]Issue restored to Assessing Officer/TPO for fresh adjudication; ground allowed for statistical purposes.Depreciation and depletion - Principles of natural justice - Remand to Assessing Officer/DRP - Disallowance of excess depreciation claimed on Panna Well Cost - HELD THAT: - The DRP had directed verification of the assessee's claim, but the AO passed the final order without affording the assessee opportunity to produce invoices and reconcile accounts. The Tribunal found procedural lapse and, with the DRP's direction in mind, restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to permit the assessee to substantiate its claim and for the AO to decide the matter on facts and law after giving an opportunity of hearing. [Paras 61, 62, 63, 64, 66]Issue remitted to Assessing Officer for verification and fresh adjudication after affording opportunity to the assessee.Depreciation and depletion - Remand to Assessing Officer/DRP - Disallowance of depreciation on global IT & T infrastructure and software - HELD THAT: - The AO disallowed depreciation for lack of documentary proof of ownership or use; however the Tribunal observed that the AO/TPO had not had benefit of the Tribunal's earlier order and that the assessee had not been given an opportunity to file supporting documents. In the interest of justice the issue was restored to the AO/TPO to decide afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity and keeping in view the coordinate Bench's decision. [Paras 67, 72, 73]Issue remitted to Assessing Officer/TPO for fresh adjudication; ground allowed for statistical purposes.Interest - accounting treatment - Remand to Assessing Officer/DRP - Disallowance of interest claimed as revenue but treated by AO as capital in nature - HELD THAT: - The DRP directed the AO to re examine the assessee's submissions; both parties agreed verification was required. The Tribunal therefore restored the issue to the AO/TPO to verify details and adjudicate afresh after affording opportunity to the assessee. [Paras 75, 76, 77, 78]Issue remitted to Assessing Officer/TPO for verification and fresh decision after hearing the assessee.Additional depreciation - Remand to Assessing Officer/DRP - Claim for additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) disallowed for want of revised return - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the claim could be considered during appellate proceedings or through submissions in the assessment proceedings and directed restoration of the issue to the AO to verify eligibility and allow the claim if the assessee satisfies the legal conditions, after giving an opportunity of hearing. [Paras 79, 80]Issue remitted to Assessing Officer for verification and fresh adjudication; ground allowed for statistical purposes.Tax deducted at source (TDS) credit - Remand to Assessing Officer/DRP - Short credit for tax deducted at source - HELD THAT: - On the parties' contentions the Tribunal did not decide the credit on merits but restored the matter to the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the claim and allow TDS credit as per law. [Paras 81, 82]Issue remitted to Assessing Officer for verification and grant of TDS credit as per law.Interest - advance tax and sections 234B/234C - Levy of interest under section 234B and computation under section 234C - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions in the assessee's own case and held that for assessment years prior to AY 2013 14 a non resident whose income is chargeable to tax by deduction at source is not liable to interest under section 234B; accordingly the AO was directed not to charge interest under section 234B. Further, the Tribunal held that interest under section 234C is to be computed on the returned income and directed the AO to compute section 234C interest accordingly. [Paras 84, 86, 87, 88, 89]Interest under section 234B set aside for the assessment year; interest under section 234C to be computed on the basis of returned income.Final Conclusion: The appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Several substantive disallowances (branch office/exploration costs, non producing PSC expenditure, exploration write offs) were deleted in favour of the assessee; interest related and various other technical issues (transfer pricing on intra group services and interest, head office expenditure, depreciation disputes, capitalisation/interest classification, additional depreciation, TDS credit) were remitted to the Dispute Resolution Panel or Assessing Officer/TPO for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee opportunity of hearing; interest under section 234B was held not leviable for the year and section 234C is to be computed on returned income.

2018 (7) TMI 1397 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI Companies Law

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Company petition dismissed for lack of merit under Companies Act, 2013. Shareholder rights upheld.
The court dismissed the company petition, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioners. The issues raised did not fall within the ambit of Section 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, and the actions of the majority shareholders and the Board were not oppressive or prejudicial to the petitioners.

Oppression and mismanagement jurisdiction - prejudicial conduct (unfairly prejudicial) - just and equitable ground for winding up - affirmative vote/nominee directors - proportional representation on board - conversion of deemed public company into private company - fiduciary duties of directors and disclosure of confidential information - removal of executive chairman and directorConversion of deemed public company into private company - Section 43A (2A) / interplay of old and new company law - Whether Tata Sons' application to revert its status to a private company is impermissible or constitutes oppression/prejudice - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that Tata Sons remains entitled to inform the Registrar and revert to private-company status under the surviving procedural mechanism derived from the earlier regime and Section 43A(2A); the repeal/transition to the 2013 Act does not preclude the company from restoring its private-character status and filing under section 14. Filing for conversion was not shown to be an act of oppression against the petitioners and therefore cannot by itself be a ground under sections 241/242. The Court noted the absence of any alteration of the Articles designed to prejudice the petitioners and observed the company had longstanding characteristics of a private company. (See the Tribunal's reasoning and conclusion at para 338 and surrounding paragraphs.) [Paras 338]The challenge to the company's application for conversion to private status is rejected; conversion proceedings do not constitute oppression/prejudice.Affirmative vote/nominee directors - oppression and mismanagement jurisdiction - prejudicial conduct (unfairly prejudicial) - Whether Articles 86, 104(B), 118, 121, 121A (and part of 124) are per se oppressive or have been used as tools of oppression against the petitioners - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found no basis to strike down or declare those Articles per se oppressive. The Articles (including the right of the Tata Trusts to nominate one-third of directors and the requirement of an affirmative vote of nominee directors for certain matters) were adopted unanimously over time and were not shown to have been exercised in a manner that, on the material before the Tribunal, amounted to oppressive or prejudicial conduct within sections 241/242. The Court emphasised that mere existence of restrictive or protective provisions in the Articles (including Article 75 on transfers) cannot, without more (such as a past misuse demonstrated to cause prejudice), be treated as oppression; petitioners had not produced minutes or concrete instances where nominee directors exercised a veto to oppress the minority. The Tribunal therefore declined to invalidate or excise those provisions. (See the Tribunal's reasoning and conclusion at paras 368-376, 394-421 and the summary in para 440.) [Paras 368, 374, 440]Articles impugned are not per se oppressive and are not struck down.Removal of executive chairman and director - oppression and mismanagement jurisdiction - fiduciary duties of directors and disclosure of confidential information - Whether the removal of Mr Cyrus Mistry as Executive Chairman (24.10.2016) and later as Director (06.02.2017) was oppressive or prejudicial to the petitioners/company and therefore actionable under sections 241/242 - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal concluded that removal of Mr Mistry as Executive Chairman was a board decision taken because the Board and the majority (Tata Trusts) had lost confidence in him; appointment on recommendation by a selection committee did not oust the Board's power to remove the Executive Chairman and the selection committee procedure need not be repeated for removal. The Tribunal further found that Mr Mistry disclosed confidential company information (including material that reached third parties and the Income tax authorities) after his removal, and that those disclosures, together with the surrounding conduct, justified his subsequent removal as director. The Tribunal held that these events did not establish the requisite oppression/prejudice under sections 241/242 and that the petitioners failed to prove that removal amounted to unfairly prejudicial conduct or mismanagement warranting relief. (See paras 441-461, 470-499 and para 577 regarding leakage.) [Paras 441, 460, 498, 577]Removals of Mr Cyrus as Executive Chairman and later as Director do not constitute oppression/prejudice under sections 241/242; the removals are not set aside.Proportional representation on board - Section 163 - option for proportional representation - Whether the petitioners were entitled to proportionate representation on the board or other reliefs based on proportional representation absent Articles providing for it - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that Section 163 permits-but does not compel-companies to adopt proportional representation in their Articles; Tata Sons' Articles do not provide for proportional representation. Consequently the petitioners had no statutory right to nominate directors or to claim proportional board representation in the absence of an Article to that effect. The petitioners' claim for proportionate board seats therefore failed. (See paras 479-481.) [Paras 479, 480, 481]Claim for proportional representation is dismissed; no entitlement absent Articles providing for it.Allegations of legacy mismanagement (Corus, Nano, AirAsia, Siva, Mehli) - oppression and mismanagement jurisdiction - Whether the pleaded legacy issues and allegations against group/business decisions establish oppression, mismanagement or unfair prejudice under sections 241/242 - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal evaluated the petitioners' catalogue of legacy grievances (including the Corus acquisition, Nano project, dealings with Sivasankaran/Sterling, AirAsia forensic allegations and alleged unjust enrichment of associates) and found no sufficient material before the Tribunal to establish that those matters constituted actionable oppression or mismanagement warranting relief under sections 241/242. Many of the impugned matters were commercial judgments, historical business decisions, or related to companies not made parties; petitioners had not established the causal nexus and requisite unfairness/prejudice to shareholders or company required for relief. The Tribunal therefore declined to grant relief on those grounds. (See the Tribunal's summary at para 581(d) and related discussion.) [Paras 64, 72, 581]Allegations concerning legacy transactions and business decisions do not establish oppression or unfair prejudice warranting relief; those claims are rejected.Leakage of confidential information and disclosure to authorities - fiduciary duties of directors - Whether Mr Cyrus leaked confidential board/company information and whether such conduct justified removal as director - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that Mr Mistry's confidential communication to third parties (including a contemporaneous email that reached media and material submitted to Income tax authorities) was not satisfactorily explained and, on the material before the Tribunal, was to be attributed to him. The Tribunal treated those disclosures as incompatible with fiduciary obligations of a director and as a proper basis for his removal as director. (See para 577 and the discussion on removal of the director.) [Paras 577]Tribunal accepts that confidential material was disclosed by Mr Cyrus; this conduct justified his removal as director.Final Conclusion: The Company Petition is dismissed. The Tribunal found no actionable oppression or unfair prejudice in the Articles impugned, in the company's application to convert to private status, in the legacy business grievances as pleaded, or in the Board's decision removing Mr Cyrus as Executive Chairman and later as director (the latter being supported by findings about disclosure of confidential information). Claims for proportional board representation and to strike down the Articles are rejected. No relief under Chapter XVI (sections 241-242) is granted.

2018 (7) TMI 620 - CESTAT CHENNAI Service Tax

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Tribunal rules in favor of assessee on service classification and penalties
The tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the classification of services as dredging services, construction of residential complexes for government bodies, and certain projects under CICS and ECIS. Demands related to specific projects were upheld. Penalties imposed were set aside, and the department's appeal for penalties under Section 78 was dismissed.

Definition of "dredging service" and its essential ingredients - construction of residential complex - taxability and "personal use" exception - distinction between works contract service and construction of complex - exemption under Notification No.25/2012 for civil structures meant predominantly for non commercial use - classification as Management, Maintenance or Repair (MMR) services - classification as Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service (ECIS) - scope of adjudication vis-a -vis the show cause notice (limitations of SCN) - penalty imposition - application of section 76 vis a vis section 78 (penal discretion)Definition of "dredging service" and its essential ingredients - scope of adjudication vis-a -vis the show cause notice (limitations of SCN) - Whether the works of widening, deepening, construction of flood protection walls and related works in various canals/drains fall within the statutory definition of 'dredging service' and are exigible to service tax - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal analysed the inclusive statutory definition of 'dredging' and identified three essential ingredients: removal of material (silt, sediment, rocks etc.); such removal being in the course of excavating/cleaning/deepening/widening/lengthening; and that the activity must be in a river, port, harbour, backwater or estuary. Reliance on dictionary meanings informed that dredging ordinarily involves the use of a dredger mounted on a boat/barge/ship or similar apparatus. The factual matrix showed the projects involved Buckingham Canal and various drains/nullahs (Velacherry, OtteriNullah, Kodungaiyur, Maduravoyal, South Buckingham Canal) where the assessee performed widening, deepening, concrete lining and flood protection works using civil construction methods without deployment of dredging apparatus or vessels. The Tribunal found that those channels and drains could not be equated to a 'river, port, harbour, backwater or estuary' for the purpose of Section 65(36a), and that the activities lacked the necessary feature of dredging as envisaged by the statute. Consequently, demands treating these projects as 'dredging services' were unsustainable and set aside. [Paras 9]Demands confirming service tax under 'dredging services' in Appeals ST/40066/2014, ST/41559/2014 and ST/41748/2015 for the specified canal/drain projects are set aside; the appeals on this point are allowed.Construction of residential complex - taxability and "personal use" exception - distinction between works contract service and construction of complex - exemption under Notification No.25/2012 for civil structures meant predominantly for non commercial use - Whether service tax is exigible on constructions carried out for Housing/Slum Clearance Boards, BDA and similar government authorities for the periods under dispute - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that demands prior to 1.6.2007 are barred by the ratio in the Apex Court's L&T decision and must be set aside. For the post 1.6.2007 period, the Tribunal examined authorities and decisions which recognize that construction of residential units intended for personal/residential use for government housing schemes, local development authorities or similar bodies falls outside the chargeable ambit (or is covered by exemption clauses such as Notification No.25/2012 where applicable). On the facts, the works for Karnataka Housing Board, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, BDA and similar projects were found to be for residential/personal use or government schemes and therefore not exigible to service tax; accordingly the related demands were set aside. The Tribunal applied these principles across the array of housing and slum clearance projects spanning 2005-2015 and allowed the appeals on this ground. [Paras 10]Demands in respect of construction of residential complexes for KHB, TNSCB, BDA and related projects (periods as noted) are set aside; appeals relating thereto succeed.Distinction between works contract service and construction of complex - scope of adjudication vis-a -vis the show cause notice (limitations of SCN) - Admissibility and sustainment of demands classified under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service (CICS) and allied categories for specific projects (municipal shopping complex, Sri Ram Avenue, Royal Orchid Hotel, Power Grid rain harvesting) - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal applied the L&T principle to determine taxability pre 1.6.2007 and examined factual records/contracts to determine proper classification and whether adjudication exceeded the scope of the SCN. The Pudukottai Municipality shopping complex and Sri Ram Avenue works (periods in 2005) were treated as works contracts prior to 1.6.2007 and demands set aside. The rain water harvesting system provided to Power Grid (a public interest project) was held to be part of a project in public interest and not exigible; that demand was set aside. By contrast, the works for Royal Orchid Hotel (covering of storm water drain for the hotel with payments made by the hotel and commercial considerations evident) were held to be exigible under CICS and the demands in relation thereto were sustained. The Tribunal also set aside demands where the adjudicating authority's classification in the impugned order went beyond the SCN. [Paras 11]Demands for Pudukottai shopping complex and Sri Ram Avenue and Power Grid rain harvesting are set aside; demands relating to Royal Orchid Hotel are sustained and those appeals dismissed to that extent.Classification as Management, Maintenance or Repair (MMR) services - classification as Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service (ECIS) - scope of adjudication vis-a -vis the show cause notice (limitations of SCN) - Whether repair/renewal of electrical installations and supply/installation of fire fighting systems are exigible to service tax under MMR or ECIS, and whether certain adjudications exceeded the SCN - HELD THAT: - For the Iron & Steel market complex at Sathangadu, the impugned 2012 order confirmed tax under MMR though the SCN proposed CICS; the Tribunal set aside that part as beyond the SCN. However, for the SCN that proposed MMR (2011 period), the Tribunal found the works to be maintenance/renewal and upheld the tax demand under MMR (Rs. 1,92,114) as properly classified. Regarding fire fighting systems at CMBT/Koyembedu, one impugned order went beyond the SCN and was set aside, while another where the SCN and adjudication both classified the activity under ECIS was sustained because installation/commissioning of fire fighting equipment fell within ECIS and the parking area was used commercially. Other fire fighting installations/supplies provided to central government institutes or government bodies (NIE, CISF, Commissioner of Police, RTC at CISF Arakonam) were held to have been provided to government entities and therefore not exigible; those demands were set aside. The Tribunal carefully distinguished cases where classification matched the SCN from those where adjudication changed the category beyond the SCN. [Paras 11]Demand under MMR for the electrical works as framed in the SCN is sustained (appeal dismissed on that point); demands where the adjudicating authority exceeded the SCN are set aside; ECIS demands where classification was within the SCN and facts show installation for commercial use are sustained; fire fighting works supplied to government bodies are not exigible and those demands are set aside.Withheld amounts linked to non exigible services - construction of residential complex - taxability and "personal use" exception - Whether amounts 'withheld' relating to projects for KHB and TNSCB give rise to service tax liability when the underlying services are not exigible - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that because the services provided to Karnataka Housing Board, TNSCB and similar bodies were not exigible to service tax (as held elsewhere in the order), there could be no tax liability on the 'withheld amounts' connected to those projects. The related demands in the impugned orders were therefore invalid. [Paras 12]Demands made on 'withheld amounts' in the respective impugned orders are set aside.Penalty imposition - application of section 76 vis a vis section 78 (penal discretion) - scope of adjudication vis-a -vis the show cause notice (limitations of SCN) - Whether penalties imposed across the impugned orders should be sustained given the confusion on taxability and the fact that services were rendered to government bodies - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal observed that there was substantive confusion and genuine arguable dispute regarding taxability of the activities, particularly because the appellants rendered services primarily to government entities (housing boards, CMDA, BDA etc.). In light of the factual matrix and the number of demands set aside, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to set aside the penalties imposed in all the appeals. The departmental appeal seeking imposition of enhanced penalty under section 78 was dismissed. [Paras 13, 14]All penalties imposed in the impugned orders are set aside; Departmental Appeal ST/40233/2014 is dismissed.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals in large part: demands treating the canal/drain projects as 'dredging services' were quashed; demands for construction of residential complexes for housing/slum clearance and similar government projects were set aside (with prior to 1.6.2007 demands also set aside per L&T); selected demands (notably Royal Orchid Hotel, certain ECIS and an MMR demand properly within the SCN) were sustained; withheld amounts and multiple other demands were set aside; all penalties were set aside; and the Revenue's appeal for enhanced penalties was dismissed.

2018 (5) TMI 896 - ITAT BANGALORE Income Tax

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Appellant's Payments to Google Ireland Deemed "Royalty" - Transfer Pricing Analysis Directed
The Tribunal concluded that payments made by the appellant to Google Ireland Limited constituted "royalty" under the Income Tax Act and DTAA with Ireland. It held that Google India Private Limited was not a Permanent Establishment of Google Ireland Limited. The Tribunal directed a fresh Transfer Pricing analysis and rejected the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i). It upheld the validity of the assessment reopening, remanded the profit attribution issue, and directed the re-computation of deduction under Section 10A. The Tribunal rejected additional grounds for deduction and confirmed the levy of interest under relevant sections.

Characterisation of payments as "royalty" - tax deduction at source / assessee in default under section 195 / section 201 - beneficial owner under a tax treaty - transfer pricing - residual profit split method and TNMM comparability - rejection of books of account under accepted accounting standards - deduction under section 10A - exclusion of telecom/foreign communication costs from total turnover - reopening of assessment - formation of prima facie belief under section 147 - equalisation levy does not alter characterisation of underlying payments Characterisation of payments as "royalty" - tax treaty (Article 12) - right to use / copyright in computer programme - Whether amounts paid by Google India Pvt. Ltd. to Google Ireland Ltd. for acquisition of AdWords distribution rights are in the nature of royalty. - HELD THAT: - After detailed examination of the AdWords Distribution Agreement, related services agreement and authoritative decisions on computer software and 'royalty', the Tribunal upheld the view that the AdWords program is a computer programme/copyrighted work and that the licence/right to use the programme, trade marks, know how and related confidential information was granted to the Indian distributor. The payments were accordingly held to fall within the inclusive Explanation to clause (vi) of section 9(1) and within Article 12 of the India Ireland DTAA as 'royalty' (including consideration for use/right to use copyrighted computer programme, trade marks and imparting of technical information). The Tribunal therefore confirmed the characterization of the payments as royalty and that tax consequences under the domestic law and DTAA follow from that characterization. Payments to Google Ireland in the AdWords/distribution arrangements are royalty; the CIT(A) and AO findings in that regard are affirmed. Tax deduction at source / assessee in default under section 195 / section 201 - vicarious liability of payer for TDS - Whether Google India was obliged to deduct tax at source on the royalty payments and whether it is an assessee in default for non deduction. - HELD THAT: - Having held the payments to be royalty, the Tribunal applied the statutory TDS regime. The obligation to deduct tax at source under section 195 arises on payments chargeable under the Act/DTAA; failure to deduct renders the payer an assessee in default under section 201. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's plea of bona fide belief and other similar defences on the facts, noting that the nature of the payments and the contractual arrangements were known and that the appellant had not discharged the onus of demonstrating a reasonable basis for non deduction. Accordingly, the default findings under section 201 and related consequences were confirmed. The Tribunal also clarified that the question of penalty requires separate adjudication but that bonafide belief does not absolve statutory non deduction in the non obstante framework. Assessee was obliged to deduct TDS on the payments held to be royalty; failure to deduct resulted in being an assessee in default and the AO/CIT(A) orders upholding default are confirmed. Beneficial owner under a tax treaty - look through / substance over form in treaty benefit claims - Whether Google Ireland Ltd. is the beneficial owner of the royalties for treaty relief, or whether benefit must be denied because ultimate beneficial interest lies elsewhere. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined the material on record including the multi tier licence structure within the Google group, public material (including Parliamentary/ press reports) and the limited inter company agreements furnished. The AO had concluded that Google Ireland was not the beneficial owner and taxed at the domestic rate; the CIT(A) had accepted beneficial ownership for one year (2013 14) but other years were decided against GIL. The Tribunal held that the assessee bore the onus of proving beneficial ownership and that the record before the Tribunal lacked the complete set of inter company licence terms necessary to determine substance (agreements between Google Inc., Google Ireland Holdings, Google Netherlands Holdings and Google Ireland Ltd.). Because the material was incomplete and the factual matrix showed multiple layers and revenue flows, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s favourable finding and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication with a direction that the assessee must produce the missing agreements and cooperate; the AO was to re examine beneficial ownership on the complete record. Finding of beneficial ownership set aside for independent reconsideration; issue remanded to AO for fresh enquiry and decision on merits after production/verification of inter company agreements and evidence. Transfer pricing - residual profit split method and TNMM comparability - aggregation of inter related transactions - Appropriateness of the TPO's transfer pricing adjustments (including rejection of the assessee's TP study, selection of comparables, use of TNMM versus profit split, and aggregation of AdWords and ITeS functions). - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that neither the assessee's TP study nor the TPO's work had been carried out with adequate transactional FAR analysis based on the actual conduct of the parties. Given the inter relation between marketing/distribution and back office/ITES functions, the Tribunal emphasised that a proper functional analysis is a prerequisite and that PSM may be appropriate where multiple integrated functions and non routine intangibles are involved. However, because the TPO's approach and the comparability work were not established on sufficient evidence and the parties had not had an opportunity to resolve defects, the Tribunal remitted all transfer pricing issues (IT, ITES and AdWords/distribution) to the AO/TPO for de novo transfer pricing determination. The AO/TPO were directed to undertake fresh FAR based TP analysis, aggregate only those transactions with a genuine nexus, apply the most appropriate method in accordance with Rule 10B and OECD guidance, and afford the assessee full opportunity to produce evidence and comparables. All transfer pricing adjustments set aside and remitted to AO/TPO for fresh determination after comprehensive FAR analysis and appropriate benchmarking; appeals on TP issues allowed in part for statistical purposes and remanded. Rejection of books of account under accepted accounting standards - Validity of AO's rejection of the assessee's books of account and recasting of accounts. - HELD THAT: - On the facts for the assessment years considered, the Tribunal noted that the AO had not pointed to any specific defect in maintenance or reliability of books and that the recasting produced no material change in the profit figure. The Tribunal emphasised that rejection under section 145 requires clear demonstration of inaccurate or unreliable accounts. For the assessment year 2008 09 the Tribunal set aside the AO's rejection and directed acceptance of the books. In other years where the TP exercise was remitted, the Tribunal directed the AO to proceed without routine rejection unless defects are specifically established on evidence. Rejection of books was improper on the record; AO directed to accept the books for the year specifically addressed and refrain from rejection absent clear evidence; related grounds remitted as appropriate. Deduction under section 10A - exclusion of telecom/foreign communication costs from total turnover - statutory construction - component excluded from export turnover must be excluded from total turnover - Whether telecommunication/foreign communication expenses excluded from 'export turnover' for section 10A computation must also be excluded from 'total turnover'. - HELD THAT: - Following the reasoning of the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court's subsequent authority, the Tribunal held that amounts excluded from export turnover (for computing the export derived profit) must also be excluded from total turnover for the purpose of applying the section 10A formula; otherwise the statutory formula would produce absurd results. The Tribunal therefore directed computation of the deduction in accordance with that principle (and noted that equal treatment of export and total turnover exclusion was mandated by higher court precedent invoked in the appeals). Telecom/communication expenses excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover for section 10A computation; direction to AO to give effect accordingly. Reopening of assessment - formation of prima facie belief under section 147 - Validity of reassessment notices and timing (whether AO formed requisite prima facie belief and whether notices under section 143(2) were issued in time/sequence). - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal reviewed the order sheet chronology and the statutory scheme and held that the AO had formed a prima facie belief that income had escaped assessment on available material (including return of the payer and connected facts) and that the issuance of notices under section 143(2) within the prescribed period was supported by the record. The Tribunal rejected the contention that a notice under section 143(2) cannot issue prior to disposal of objections to the reasons recorded for reopening; the statutory scheme does not require the sequence urged by the assessee. On the facts the reopening was therefore held valid. Reopening of assessment upheld as valid on the material; notices under section 143(2) were properly issued in the circumstances. Equalisation levy does not alter characterisation of underlying payments - Whether the later introduction of an equalisation levy alters the tax characterisation of payments under the AdWords agreements. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal observed that the equalisation levy (Finance Act, 2016) targets certain online advertisement consideration but does not change the legal character of payments under underlying agreements involving use of IPR, know how or copyright. The levy therefore does not convert the nature of payments (if otherwise royalty) into business profits or vice versa. The equalisation levy does not affect the present adjudication of the characterisation questions. Equalisation levy does not change the legal characterisation of the impugned payments; it is not a ground to reclassify royalties as business income. Remand for verification of beneficial ownership and inter company licence agreements - Whether the Tribunal should decide beneficial ownership on the existing record or remand for further verification. - HELD THAT: - Because complete inter company licence agreements (between Google Inc., Google Ireland Holdings, Google Netherlands Holdings BV and Google Ireland Ltd.) were not filed and the public material indicated multi tier revenue flows, the Tribunal considered it inappropriate to decide beneficial owner status on the incomplete record. Accordingly it remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, with directions to the assessee to produce the missing agreements and cooperate, and for the AO to examine documentary and accounting evidence (including flow of funds, allocation clauses and actual receipts) to determine beneficial ownership and treaty entitlement. Issue remanded to AO for fresh adjudication and verification; assessee directed to produce relevant inter company agreements and cooperation required. Final Conclusion: The Tribunal ultimately affirmed that the payments under the AdWords/distribution arrangements constituted "royalty", confirmed the payer's obligation to deduct tax at source and upheld default consequences for non deduction on the facts. At the same time the Tribunal set aside several contested findings and remitted core issues - notably beneficial ownership and all transfer pricing adjustments (including the appropriateness of TNMM v. profit split and comparable selection) - to the Assessing Officer/ TPO for fresh, FAR based enquiry and quantification, directing production and verification of inter company licence agreements and adherence to OECD/Rule 10B principles. The Tribunal also held that telecom/communication costs excluded from export turnover must be excluded from total turnover for section 10A computation and that routine rejection of books was not justified on the record.

Page of 12

Press 'Enter' after typing page number.

101 to 120 of 231 Results

Case Laws

All › "The selected files type does not match its extension"

All Case Laws

Showing Results for :

Reset Filters

Page of 12

Press 'Enter' after typing page number.

101 to 120 of 231 Results

No Records Found

Case Laws

All Case Laws

Topics

Acts Income Tax

➔Previous Next ➔

Contact Us At :

FAQs :

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Case Laws

Case Laws

Topics