TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal challenging ITAT orders on Income Tax Act dismissed, emphasizing genuineness of transactions and limited High Court jurisdiction.</h1> <h3>Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Versus M/s. Attire Designers Pvt. Ltd.</h3> Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Versus M/s. Attire Designers Pvt. Ltd. - [2023] 455 ITR 697 (Del) Issues:1. Challenge to ITAT order regarding addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.2. Challenge to ITAT order regarding addition made under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.3. Refund of incentive received from Custom Department Authority.Analysis:Issue 1:The appellant challenged the ITAT order regarding the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The counsel argued that the ITAT erred in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) to delete the addition without considering the creditworthiness of the companies involved in the transactions. The CIT(A) found that the purchases were at arm's length price, and no adverse findings were brought on record by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) observed that the sundry creditors had corresponding purchases against sales, trade payables outstanding, and sufficient documentary evidence was submitted to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A) findings, emphasizing that no adverse material was brought on record to treat the credit balance as non-genuine.Issue 2:The appellant challenged the ITAT order regarding the addition made under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant received an incentive from the Custom Department Authority, which was later asked to be refunded as certain exports did not qualify for the incentive. The Appellate Authorities found that there was no indication of any offense under foreign trade regulation in the directive to refund the incentive. Additionally, the Revenue failed to demonstrate that the interest paid was on account of any prohibited act by the appellant, as required under Explanation 37(1) of the Act.Issue 3:The Court cited precedents to emphasize that the High Court's jurisdiction is limited to substantial questions of law and does not warrant interference with findings of fact that involve re-appreciation of evidence. The Court found no substantial question of law in the present appeal and dismissed it accordingly, citing the importance of upholding lower appellate court inferences when multiple interpretations of facts are possible.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal as no substantial question of law was found, upholding the concurrent findings of fact by the lower Appellate Authorities on both issues. The judgment highlighted the importance of respecting lower court inferences when multiple interpretations of facts are possible.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
