Servicer of aircraft lessors had no locus standi to file insolvency proceedings against SpiceJet in absence of privity of contract as it was only the Servicer and Administrative Agent of the respective lessors and had inter-se arrangement with lessors in form of Servicing Agreements and applicant was not a ‘Operational Creditor’ in the instant case.
When the Instrument was not chargeable with stamp duty as it was not required to be stamped, section 35 had no application and no bar could be imposed due to it being not duly stamped.
Salary received by a Non-Resident of India (NRI) in India by exercising employment in Singapore should not be taxed in India as assessee would be entitled for the benefit of Article 15 of relevant DTAA which provided that the salary would be taxable in the country wherein the employment was exercised and the same would be subject to verification by AO that this income had already been offered to tax in Singapore and assessee had paid due taxes. AO would also verify that no credit of Taxes paid in India had been taken by assessee in Singapore.
Since assessee had deliberately not avoided TDS and there was no contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty was not leviable for not deducting TDS on foreign remittances.
While issuing a cryptic show cause notice, the authorities had violated the principles of natural justice. As from the impugned order as well as the show cause notice, the reasons for cancellation of GST registration were not decipherable therefrom, therefore, the show cause notice and the impugned order were quashed and set aside.
Form-10 under rule 17(2) for claiming exemption had been supplied to AO after the prescribed period but before completion of assessment, it ought to be considered by AO for granting benefit of exemption under Section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in original assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the entire process of reassessment that had been initiated by Department was without any legal basis whatsoever.
Even though the department had the authority to dispute the residential status of the assessee merely on the strength of the Tax Residency Certificate (TRC), it was incumbent upon the department to make a proper inquiry and to establish the fact that the party claiming benefit and the strength of the TRC was a shell or conduit company.
Reopening of the concluded scrutiny assessment was a serious business, therefore, senior officers like ACIT and PCIT were expected to apply their minds to such requests and, only after that, approve the initiation of reassessment proceedings.
Reassessment initiated beyond 4 years was quashed as assessee had disclosed the information with regard to the sale of the agricultural land and all the particulars with regard to sale of agricultural land was disclosed before AO in full extent and there was no failure on the part of assessee with regard to providing material facts and the notice issued under Section 148 and 149 of the Act for re-opening assessment.
Gains arising from sale of a share of a company incorporated overseas, which derives less than 50% of its value from assets situated in India would certainly not be taxable under section 9(1)(i) of the Act read with Explanation 5 thereto.
