Impugned order of the Tribunal has been passed in total disregard of the principles laid down in KEC International Ltd. Vs. B.R.Balakrishnan and others {(2001)251-ITR-158 (Bom)} wherein a Division Bench of this Court laid down the following parameters to be observed by the Authorities while considering the stay application :
On remand, the Assessing Officer to take a fresh decision in accordance with law and the case law at the time he decides the matter, inclusive of the decision of the Special Bench of the tribunal rendered in the case of IndusInd Bank Ltd..
After Kerala HC Karnataka HC too stay the enforcement of notices U/s. 234E by TRACES. In this case Petitioners have questioned the constitutional validity of the provision of Section 234E of the income Tax Act and a notice to the petitioner levying fee vide annexure A1 to A21 and Annexure – B.
Full bench of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal in the case of ‘Kunal Structure (India) Pvt. Ltd. V/S The State Of Gujarat’ held that in view of provisions contained in Sec. 75 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, penalty cannot be imposed for the first time in revision.
Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the order imposing penalty does not disclose that prior approval of the Joint Commissioner was obtained in either of the two cases. He drew our attention to a judgment of this Court in the case of AWT No. 4 of 2003 and AWT No. 5 of 2003
Assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing of Casting. During the course of assessment proceedings AO noticed that Assessee has received cash loans on various days aggregating to Rs 8,89,000/- from Shri Ramusingh Badoria, the Director, of the Assessee.
The Tribunal was justified in taking the view that the assessee had continued to show the admitted liabilities in its balance sheet, the same could not be treated as cessation of liabilities. Merely because the liabilities were outstanding for last many years, it could not be inferred that the said liabilities has ceased to exist.
Where huge funds were available without any interest liability with assessee and there was no evidence to hold that borrowed money was utilized for purpose of advance to sister concerns, no disallowance of interest was warranted.
We find that CIT(A) while deleting the addition has noted that the Assessee was having sufficient interest free funds and therefore there was no justification for presuming that any part of interest bearing loan has been utilized for the purpose of making investments.
The assessee company is a builder and developer of residential and commercial projects. It was noted by the AO that the assessee company is a partner in several “partnership firms”. The AO had made a list of all those firms along with profit sharing ratio of the assessee in those firms.
