NBCC India Ltd Vs ADDL CIT

Whether a challenge to the decision of the AO to call for Special Audit, is sustainable, where several aspects indicating complexity of account books & material are highlighted, leading to the conclusion that a Special Audit would better suit the Revenue's interest - NO: HC

- Assessee's writ petition dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-92-ITAT-DEL

DCIT Vs Kushal Infraproject Industries India Ltd

Whether if AO fails to explain how salary paid to relatives of director is excessive or unreasonable having regard to fair market value of services rendered by them, same cannot be disallowed - YES: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: DELHI ITAT

2020-TIOL-91-ITAT-DEL

Kusum Mehta Vs ACIT

Whether as forest department report tallies with stock register maintained with the assessee and confirm destruction of liquid Katha, addition made by AO on account of undisclosed sales of katha should be removed - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: DELHI ITAT

2020-TIOL-90-ITAT-MUM

National Laminate Corporation Vs ITO

Whether in case of conflicting judgement of two non-jurisdictional High Courts, a view favorable to the assessee should be taken and therefore fees u/s 234E cannot be levied for any period prior to 01/06/2015 - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

2020-TIOL-89-ITAT-JAIPUR

KK Construction Company Vs ACIT

Whether disallowance u/s 40A(3) for making cash payment in purchase of construction items can be made when there is no banking facility in Gram Panchyat areas where payments are made by assessee - NO : ITAT

Whether if purchase transactions are proved to be genuine and are free from vice of any device of evasion of tax, disallowance u/s 40A(3) for making cash payment can not be made - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: JAIPUR ITAT

2020-TIOL-101-CESTAT-BANG

JMT Consultant Detailing Pvt Ltd Vs CCT

ST - The assessee-company is registered for providing Structural Design & Detailing Consultancy Service - It availed credit of service tax paid on various input services used while exporting output services - The assessee claimed refund of unutilized cenvat credit, as per Notfn No 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012 read with Rule 8 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) and Service Tax Rules, 1994 - On adjudication, the refund claim was rejected on grounds that the assessee failed to submit proof of having debited the amount of refund claimed in its Cenvat a/c - On appeal, such findings were sustained by the Commr.(A) - Hence the present appeal.

Held - It is seen that the assessee reversed the Cenvat credit in its Cenvat credit account but the same was not shown in the ST-3 Returns because by the time refund was filed, GST has been introduced and filing of ST-3 returns itself was done away with - Further, the assessee voluntarily debited the refund amount in GSTR-3B during May 2018 which clearly complies with the conditions of the Notification - Similar issue of refund had been allowed by the Tribunal in Global Analytics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST - Hence the O-i-A denying refund is unsustainable: CESTAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE

CUSTOMS

2020-TIOL-102-CESTAT-MUM

Customs Capsule Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - The assessee-company imported Pharmaceutical Gelatin (Capsule Grade) and filed BoE for assessment before the Customs Department - On examination of records, the Department observed that the assessee declared CIF value as USD 8000 under DEEC scheme whereas the pre-paid amount shown in the HAWB was for USD 3821.51 - As the freight collected in the airway bill was found to be half of the declared CIF value, the assessee was asked to explain the discrepancy - The assessee claimed there to be delay in shipment and as such the shipper agreed to bear the freight charged and that the assessee was only required to pay the invoice value - Such explanation was rejected - SCN was issued, culminating into an O-i-O, wherein the CIF value declared by the assessee was re-determined by adding 20% of the FOB value as adjusted freight component, as per Rule 10(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 - The goods were confiscated with option of redemption fine being given - Penalties were imposed on the assessee and its CHA u/s 112(a)(iii) - On appeal, the Commr.(A) sustained the O-i-O.

Held - In context of the valuation of imported goods, the proviso clause appended to Section 14 mandates that the transaction value in the case of imported goods shall include inter alia, cost of transportation to the place of importation - The provision nowhere provides that only the freight paid by the importer should be included in the transaction value - Thus, in absence of any specific mention about the person required to pay the freight component, such amount paid by the overseas supplier should also be considered as part of transaction value for the purpose of determination of duty liability - Thus, rejection of the declared value and re-determination of the same in terms of Rule 10(2) by the original authority is in conformity with law - But as the assessee entertained reasonable belief regarding non-inclusion of the element of freight in the transaction value, the redemption fine imposed merits being reduced - Moreover, the penalty u/s 112(a)(iii) merits being quashed since the assessee as well as the overseas supplier informed the Department about delayed supply of the part quantity through air and that the freight amount was also paid by the overseas supplier: CESTAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

DTAA - Interest paid by Indian Branch to overseas branches being in nature of payment made to self, will be governed by principle of mutuality, and hence, not taxable under I-T Act: ITAT

TP - Extended credit period allowed to AEs for repayment of outstanding receivables, calls for adjustment if impact of receivables was not factored in working capital: ITAT

TP - Pure financial advisor & investment banker is not comparable to mere support service provider, being functionally dissimilar: ITAT