Whether the transferrer of a capital asset of a residential unit, in order to claim benefit of Section 54, must also transfer the land appurtenant thereto - NO: HC

Whether the benefit of Section 54 should not be denied with respect to flats in a housing complex, merely because the complex is situated on a piece of land occupied by a Co-operative Housing Society under a long term lease - YES: HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT  

Whether in case, an assessee maintains common pool of own funds and interest-bearing funds, and makes investments in tax-free securities from own funds, no disallowance can be made if its own funds are more than the investments - YES: HC

Whether the liability of assessee to pay damages would arise on the date of the award of such damages even if the award was challenged by the assessee in appeal - YES: HC

Whether where any goods/services held for purposes of any other business carried on by assessee are transferred to eligible business, then consideration for such transfer does not correspond to the market value of such goods as on the date of transfer, for purposes of deduction u/s 80IA - YES: HC

Whether when the Principal receives interest from its subsidiary, and the latter also receives interest from the former under two independent contracts, provisions of Sec 10(23G) require any netting of such payments - NO: HC

- Case disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT 

Whether once all the aspects in the matter as examined by the CIT(A) is merged with the order of the Tribunal, the Commissioner cannot initiate a fresh enquiry targeting a single aspect of the same claim in exercise of its revisional powers - YES: HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT 

Whether there should be a direct agreement between the transferee enterprise and the specified authority for availing the benefit u/s 80IA - NO: HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT  

Whether a direction given to the AO to examine the matter afresh, leaving it open to the taxpayer to put forth his defense on all aspects, does not give rise to substantial question of law warranting an appeal u/s 260-A - YES: HC

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: UTTARKHAND HIGH COURT 

In writ, the High Court directs that notices be issued to the parties and that the proceedings be stayed as an interim measure.

- Notice issued: GUJARAT HIGH COURT  

2019-TIOL-1256-CESTAT-AHM

2019-TIOL-1255-CESTAT-MAD

CX - Issue relates to eligibility of credit of service tax paid on freight for outward transportation of goods upto buyer's premises - This Tribunal in a batch of appeals, vide Final Order dt. 13.03.2019 on the very same issue has remanded the matter back to the appellate authority to examine the issue afresh - In the circumstances, the present appeal is also being remanded to the appellate authority with the same directions for de novo adjudication: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: CHENNAI CESTAT

CX - The assessee is engaged in manufacture of various gases - A valuation dispute arose between the Department and assessee and a SCN was issued proposing to demand short paid service tax for the period March 2014 to January 2015 - The Commissioner (A) has dismissed the appeal filed before him as time barred - The order of Original Authority was dispatched by RPAD and is shown by the post office records to have been delivered on 13 January 2016 - Even though the assessee has procured another certified copy of order on 26 August 2016, the date of service of the O-I-O is to be considered as 13 January 2016, since the order was dispatched by RPAD in terms of Section 37C (i) of CEA, 1944 - The Supreme Court has categorically held in case of Singh Enterprises 2007-TIOL-231-SC-CX that the Commissioner (A) has no power to condone delay beyond the period of one month after the normal time limit of two months - No infirmity found in the order passed by Commissioner (A): CESTAT

- Appeal rejected: DELHI CESTAT

Cus - The assessee have imported the consignment of rough diamond (precious stone) from Hong Kong and filed Bills of Entry for their clearance through ICD, Jaipur thereof - During scrutiny of aforesaid Bills of Entry, it was found that imported consignment of rough diamond were heavily overvalued and accordingly, those were seized for further investigation under Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962 under reasonable belief that same was liable for confiscation under provisions of Section 111 of Customs Act as IEC holder were not found to be actual importer and also the truthful declaration were not made as mandated under Section 46 of Customs Act - The issue to be decided is as to whether after amendment of Section 110(2) of Customs Act by Finance Act, 2018 is there any need for issuance of SCN before the extension is permitted by another six months on reasonable ground by Commissioner/adjudicating authority - It will be appropriate to refer the Section 110(2) before amendment and also after the amendment vide FA, 2018 - Clause 90 of Bill seeks, to amend Section 110 of Customs Act so as to give power to extend the period for issuing SCN in case of seized goods by a further period of six months to case in cases where no order for provisional release of goods has been passed - Similar issue has been decided by coordinate bench of Tribunal vide Final Order dated 17.1.2019 in case of S.R.K. Metal & Industries & Pink Commercial - The impugned order is not sustainable and the same are being set aside which includes the return of imported goods to the person from whom the seizure have been made: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT

Cus - The assessee imported Hydraulically Operated Self-Propelled Piling Rig with accessories - The dispute is regarding the interpretation of Notfn 20/99-Cus and in particular Condition No.75, subject to which the assessee had originally imported equipments required for road construction - It is not in dispute that the assessee imported the goods for use in road construction projects for which the assessee procured contracts from Ministry of Surface Transport as well as from Govt. of Tamilnadu - The demand for customs duty has been raised in view of the fact that the goods were sent to Bangladesh before the completion of five years period specified in condition no.75 of the Notification ibid - This condition of Notfn binds the importer to use the imported goods exclusively for construction of roads and further that such equipments should not be sold or otherwise disposed in any manner for a period of five years - It is not in dispute that the imported goods were not used for construction of road in India - But the fact that the goods have been sent to Bangladesh, has been considered as disposal of goods prior to completion of mandatory period of five years - The goods were exported to Bangladesh after completion of road construction project contract by assessee with Ministry of Surface Transport as well as Government of Tamilnadu - The goods were exported to Bangladesh not by way of sale or by way of transfer in any other manner - The goods title in goods continued to remain vested with assessee as is evident from the facts when the goods were reimported, the Bills of Entry were filed by assessee - Hence, assessee has not violated the conditions attached to the Notfn 20/99-Cus ibid - In any case the Notfn 94/96-Cus extends the benefit of ‘Nil' rate of duty for the goods which are reimported into India subject to the condition that such goods are the same as were exported - There is no dispute that the goods re-imported on 20.1.2005 were nothing but the same goods which were exported on 16.02.2004 - As such, no justification found for demand of customs duty on such goods either in terms of Notfn 20/99-Cus or in terms of Notfn 94/96-Cus. - The impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT