I-T - Mesne profit fixed by Rent Control Tribunal in eviction proceedings cannot be treated as rent receivable in respect of premises protected by Rent Act: HC

Siddharth Rastogi Vs CBDT

In writ, the Apex Court condones the delay & directs that notices be issued. It also directs the assessee to deposit a sum of Rs 10,03,036/- with interest @ 12% per annum till date. Such deposit be made within one week from date of this order. It also directs that matter be tagged with SLP (C) No. 3986/2019.

- Notice issued: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2019-TIOL-68-SC-IT

PR CIT Vs Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd

In writ, the Apex Court admits the matter on issue of whether foreign exchange fluctuation gain classifies as revenue receipt or capital receipt.

- Notice issued: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2019-TIOL-67-SC-IT

CIT Vs C Aryama Sundaram

In writ, the Apex Court condones the delay and directed that notices be issued to the parties.

- Notice issued: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2019-TIOL-455-ITAT-MUM

ITO Vs Mother Dairy Fruit And Vegetable Pvt Ltd

Whether interest expenses shown as current liability in the books can be disallowed and added to income when they haven't been claimed as expenditure by the assessee - NO: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

2019-TIOL-454-ITAT-MUM

DCIT Vs Lodha Construction

Whether when there is no failure attributable to the assessee relating to disclosure of facts necessary for assessment, then under no circumstances, reassessment can be treated as valid - YES: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

2019-TIOL-453-ITAT-MUM

Nivo Controls Pvt Ltd Vs CIT

Whether simply because separate books of account in respect to R&D unit is not maintained then the assessee will not be eligible for deduction u/s 35(1) and hence warrants order of rectification by the Tribunal - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's Miscellaneous Application dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

2019-TIOL-452-ITAT-PUNE

DCIT Vs Jaya Hind Investments Pvt Ltd

Whether the expenditure which has already been disallowed u/s 14A in the return is required to be proportionate to the exempt income of the assessee - YES: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal partly allowed: PUNE ITAT

2019-TIOL-451-ITAT-PUNE

DCIT Vs Vidya Sahakari Bank Ltd

Whether when no material is brought to the Court's notice by the Revenue against the findings of the Tribunal then addition is not sustainable - YES: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: PUNE ITAT

2019-TIOL-450-ITAT-PUNE

Softcon Systems Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether the addition by applying GP rate at 10% of bogus purchases is reasonable, when the hawala dealers are not traceable and the assessee has deposited VAT against the alleged bogus purchases - YES: ITAT

Whether when the person who had collected the VAT had not paid the same to Sales Tax Department, will make the transaction bogus and the purchases can be rejected on such ground - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: PUNE ITAT

SERVICE TAX

 2019-TIOL-523-CESTAT-MAD

Tristar Accommodations Ltd Vs CCE

ST - The assessee company was registered for providing Works Contract Services (WCS) and Renting of Immovable Property Services (RIPS)- Though not registered under the category of RCS, the assessee was actually involved in construction of RCS for which it also received consideration- The Department thus demanded service tax u/s 65 (105 (zzzh) of the Finance Act, 1994, on such consideration and sent a SCN regarding the same along with demand for interest and penalties- In furtherance of the same, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the ST demand along with interest and penalty u/s 77 & 78- The assessee thus approached the CESTAT.

Held: The Apex Court in CCE & Cus., Kerala Vs L&T Ltd. , held that service tax liability for composite contracts involving provision of service as well as transfer of property in goods can be levied under Works Contract Service and not under CICS - Following such decision,the order raising demand for service tax under CICS is incorrect and thus liable to be set aside: CESTAT (Para 5)

- Assessee's appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

 

 

CENTRAL EXCISE

2019-TIOL-522-CESTAT-MUM

Sanjay Enterprises Vs CCE

CX - Issue is whether the appelalnt is eligible for cash refund of accumulated CENVAT credit upon closure of the factory.

Held: Larger Bench in the case of Steel Strips case - 2011-TIOL-656-CESTAT-DEL-LB has held that absence of an express grant is an implied bar for refund; that when right to refund does not accrue under law, claim thereof is inconceivable - refund of unutilized credit is only permissible in case of export of goods and for no other reason whatsoever that may be - following the said precedent, impugned order is upheld and appeal is dismissed: CESTAT [para 6]

- Appeal dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2019-TIOL-521-CESTAT-MAD

PRP Exports Vs CC & CE

CX - The assessee is engaged in manufacture and export of granite blocks, slab and tiles and are 100% EOU holding Central Excise Registration - They obtained Bonded Warehouse Licence for locations at Therkkutheru and Keelavazhavu from department on execution of B-17 bonds - For procurement of indigenous / imported goods without payment of duty, assessee had used CT-3 Certificates and Procurement Certificates - It appeared to department that quantum of spares procured / imported without payment of central excise duties / customs duties removed from the bonded warehouse to the quarries and used in quarry equipment had exceeded the limit of 5% of value of goods imported by assessee - The issue that arises for consideration is whether the restriction of 5% is applicable to spares that are removed from EOU to the quarries or whether the said restriction of 5% is in respect of the spares that are procured / imported by 100% EOU - There is no limit for procurement of spares required for capital goods for use within EOU - The restriction of 5% is for removal of spares to the quarrying site - Revenue has been at pains to argue that DGFT circular is not binding upon the Customs department - However, it is pertinent to note that the clarification has been issued only after consultation with and clarification from the Department of Revenue of which only CBEC is a wing - Therefore, there is no violation of conditions of Notfns and the allegation that they have imported spares over and above 5% and thus is not eligible for exemption of customs duties / central excise duties is without any legal basis - The assessee have been furnishing fortnightly statements showing the movement of goods / spares to their quarries - Further, CT-3 certificates have also been issued in respect of goods moved to the quarries - All these would go to show that department had full knowledge and permission was granted to the assessee for transfer of such items to the quarries - In such event, the allegation that assessee is guilty of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty cannot sustain - The appeals succeed both on merits and on limitation: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

 

 

CUSTOMS

2019-TIOL-520-CESTAT-HYD

A B Impex Vs CC & CE

Cus - The issue is regarding redemption fine and penalty imposed by lower authorities for import of second hand photocopiers without license - Photocopiers were imported and value was declared which was enhanced and duty liability was worked out as also the goods were held liable for confiscation and were released on payment of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation and penalty was imposed under Section 112(a) of Customs Act - The various decisions of Tribunal have held that redemption fine of 10% of enhanced value should meet the ends of justice - In this case also Tribunal hold so - Accordingly the redemption fine imposed on assessee in this case is reduced to 10% of enhanced value - Penalty imposed is reasonable and within the range as has been applied by Tribunal - Accordingly, Tribunal intend to change the amount of penalty imposed, same is uphold: CESTAT

- Appeal disposed of: HYDERABAD CESTAT