High Court of Kerala recently declared that interest from loan given to sister concern cannot be set off against the interest paid by the assessee to his benkers for the purpose of eligible deduction under section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act 1961.
The solitary common issue that arose in these appeals was with regard to the legality of dis-allowance of deduction made towards belated deposit of employees contribution of Provident Fund/Employees State Insurance. A reading of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that the first appellate authority confirmed the order of dis-allowance following the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.454/2014.
The only legal issue involved in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to claim exemption on the sale of zip fasteners to a ready made garment manufacturer, who has exported the ready made garments outside the territory of India.
Whether the ITAT was right in holding that payment of Rs. 70 lakhs made by the appellant on account of non-competition for a period of five years was in the nature of capital expenditure?
If a provision of law had been clearly overlooked or ignored in the assessment order, it would not be open to Asessing Officer to reopen the assessment after expiry of four years in case no failure on assessee’s part to disclose fully and truly all material facts was alleged.
Though the Learned Special Government Pleader pointed out that it is a mistake of the Accountant and cannot be rectified, in my view, if a genuine mistake has crept-in, then, within the time permitted under the Statute, the dealer is entitled to file revised Form WW or revised return.
It does appear that the E-Way Bill had been downloaded and produced though with some delay but before conclusion of the penalty proceedings.
The other ground of seizure on which penalty has been imposed is that the goods, started their journey one week after the date of the invoice. Prima facie that cannot be the ground to seize the goods or to impose penalty.
The requirement to obtain previous approval of the IAC is mandatory as it is to safeguard the interests of the assessee against arbitrary exercise of power by the AO.
Order makes mention of the service of a notice to the company as also to the Director, who represents the company in this writ petition. The notice sent to the company was returned with the postal inscription ‘addressee left’, whereas the notice sent to the Director was duly received by him on 14.03.2017.
