Deduction under section 80P(2)(d) was allowable on receipt of interest from co-operative bank as a Co-operative Society was only a co-operative society as defined under the Act, be it a Co-operative Society carrying on banking business or Co-operative Society carrying on the other businesses or a Co-operative bank.
The proceedings drawn, admittedly being beyond a period that was prescribed under sub-section (2A) of Section 153 and the consequential orders passed were all beyond the period of limitation prescribed under sub-section (2A) of Section 153 hence, the same being not sustainable, deserved to be and was accordingly set aside/quashed.
Penalty u/s 112 (a) against CHA on clearance of imported vessel was not leviable as the duty of the importer was to give the correct and detailed description which had been discharged and the charge of misclassification had been dropped against importing firm and the matter already been decided in favour of the importing firm and its director and therefore, the cause of imposing penalty against Custom House Clearing Agent get extinguishable.
Penalty under section 271FAA was deleted as the defects in the statement of the reportable account were rectified within the time limit provided under sub-section (4) of Section 285BA.
Board is the authority to regulate the functioning of the Insolvency Professionals and the Board comprises of experts in the field who have been appointed by the Central Government to carry out the functions specified under Part IV of the IBC.
Demand of service tax for the period from 1st April 2003 to March 2005 was prima facie wrong because appellant had started rendering services to M/s IBP Co. Ltd. from 01.09.2005 as was clear from the agreement dated 01.09.2005 which had been accepted in the order-in-original.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as there was failure on the part of AO as to which limb of Section 271(1)(c) got attracted for imposition of penalty.
Respondent had facilitated clearance work for certain imported goods on a commission basis without verifying the IEC numbers used for the imports and having due knowledge that the mastermind was Mr Yusuf Pardawala, who was the real beneficiary or the beneficial owner.
Addition under section 69A was not justified as AO had not brought on record any material in support of the addition made by him nor he provided any basis for arriving at the basis, particularly when all the 30 flats had not been sold during the year relevant to AY 2017-18, therefore, there was no basis for arriving at the conclusion that assessee had received any on-money.
Since there was no DIN mentioned in the assessment order which was contrary to the CBDT Circular No.19/2019 dated 14th August 2019, therefore, the jurisdiction assumed was invalid as generation of DIN subsequently and generation of intimation to be sent to assessee were of no consequence for the purpose of assessment and raising the demand.
