2019-TIOL-539-SC-IT

Dalmia Power Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether in computing the time period prescribed u/s 139(5) for filing the revised return, the time taken to obtain the sanction for amalgamation scheme from the NCLT by the amalgamating companies is to be excluded - YES: SC

Whether if the case is of restructuring of business, prior approval of CBDT for condonation of delay in filing the revised return u/s 119(2)(b) is not needed if the approval has been already granted by the NCLT without Revenue's objection - YES: SC

- Assessee's appeals allowed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2019-TIOL-538-SC-IT

CIT Vs SAW Pipes Ltd

Having heard the parties, the Supreme Court condoned the delay and dismisses the SLP, thus concurring with the opinion of High Court on the issue of 'revisionary jurisdiction'.

- Revenue's SLP dismissed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2019-TIOL-2493-ITAT-ALL

Anoop Singh Vs ITO

Whether once quantum addition stands deleted, then penalty levied on account of same also merits deletion - YES: ITAT

- Case remanded: ALLAHABAD ITAT

2019-TIOL-2492-ITAT-GUW

Hotel Centre Point Vs ITO

Whether exemption provided by the Constitution of India to eligible individuals u/s 10(26) can be extended to a partnership firm formed by them, to grant them immunity from filing I-T return - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: GUWAHATI ITAT

2019-TIOL-2491-ITAT-JAIPUR

Mahendra Singh Meel Vs ITO

Whether when interest expenditure is laid out for earning interest income, then rate of interest for payment of interest is not relevant for purpose of allowing deduction u/s 57(iii) - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: JAIPUR ITAT

2019-TIOL-2490-ITAT-VIZAG

Natta Suryarao Vs ITO

Whether when construction of the house is completed within 3 years from the sale of the previous asset, Revenue can deny exemption available to the assessee u/s 54F merely because construction of the house was commenced before the transfer of the asset - NO: ITAT 

- Assessee's appeal allowed: VISAKHAPATNAM ITAT

2019-TIOL-2489-ITAT-VIZAG

Sanapala Satyanarayana Vs ACIT

Whether the taxpayer is entitled to claim the benefit of second proviso to Sec 40(a)(ia) only in the assessment year in which the recipient has admitted the income and paid tax thereon - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: VISAKHAPATNAM ITAT

2019-TIOL-3586-CESTAT-BANG

Kerla State Electicity Board Vs CC, CE & ST

CX - The assessee is a PSU engaged in generation, transmission and distribution of electricity - To curb the shortage of power, the assessee began Low Sulphur Heavy Stock (LSHS) based power plants - The assessee then allowed one M/s Kasargod Power Corporation Ltd to start a thermal power project using LSHS as fuel - Later, the Govt issued Notfn No 6/2002-CE which exempted Naptha and LSHS from Excise duty subject to the fulfulment of two conditions - The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the jurisdictional Asst Commr. of Central Excise, rejecting refund claimed by the assessee - Such rejection of refund was sustained by the Commr.(A) - The Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority, which proceeded to reject the refund claim on findings that M/s KPCL had not availed the exemption contained in Notfn No 06/2002 and paid duty on purchase of LSHS and were ineligible for exemption upto 8.7.2003, the date of finally fulfiling the conditions stipulated in the Notfn - It was also held that since M/s KPCL was ineligible for exemption in the relevant period, no qestion of refund would arise - Hence the assessee, being the purchaser of power from M/s KPCL was also found to be ineligible for refund - Such findings were again sustained by the Commr.(A) - Hence the present appeal.

Held - The assessee undisputedly was eligible for exemption under Notification No.6/2003 - It is seen that that KPCL filed an application for availing the benefit of Notification on 04/03/2003 itself but the Revenue wanted certain clarification as to whether the validity of the certificate issued as per Section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1948 is still valid and the same was also verified vide letter dt. 24/04/2003 and 09/05/2003 - Except for this clarification, there is no dispute regarding the eligibility and other conditions to be satisfied by the assessee - It is also seen that once the clarification was given by KPCL and finally edibility certificate was issued, the said certificate relates to the date of application i.e. 04/03/2003 filed by KPCL - Besides, the Commr.(A) did not consider the submissions tendered by the assessee whereas the original authority relied on decisions which are found to be distinguishable - Presently, the eligibility for benefit under the notification is not disputed and so a strict interpretation of the notification is not to be followed as once the assessee is found to be eligible for benefit under the notification, a liberal procedure is to be followed - Moreover, any substantive benefit cannot be denied for procedural infractions - It is also seen that the duty amount borne by M/s KPCL was reimbursed by the assessee and such amount has been shown as loans and advances in the books of accounts which clearly show that the duty amount has not been shown in the income and expenditure in the balance sheet - Hence no duty liability arises since the refund would be adjusted against loans and advances - Hence the O-i-A is not tenable in law: CESTAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

2019-TIOL-3585-CESTAT-MUM

CCE Vs IG Petrochemicals Ltd

CX - The assessee, a 100% EoU engaged in manufacturing Phthalic Anhydride, cleared such product to DTA as per Section 3(1) of CEA, 1944 r/w Notification No. 23/02- CE dated 31.3.2003 - During the relevant period, the Revenue alleged that the assessee incorrectly calculated EC and SHEC payable on the Excise duty - SCN was issued proposing to recover such amount with interest and penalty - Such demands were dropped by the Commr. on adjudication - Hence the present appeal by the Revenue.

Held - The issue at hand stands covered by the decision of the Larger bench of the Tribunal in Kumar Arch Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II wherein it was held that since the DTA clearance of a 100% EOU attracted Excise duty and in terms of proviso to Section 3(1) of CEA, 1944, the measure of the excise duty leviable is aggregate of duties of Customs charged on import of like goods into India under Customs Act, 1962 r/w Indian Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or any other law for the time being in force, the aggregate of duties of Customs on which EC under Section 93 of Finance Act, 2004 and SHEC u/s 138 of Finance Act, 2007 is to be charged, would not include education cess and SHEC u/s 94 of Finance Act, 2004 and Section 139 of Finance Act, 2007 - In light of such findings, the order passed by the Commissioner does not warrant interference with: CESTAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT