2020-TIOL-130-HC-ALL-IT

Kamal Kumar Agrawal Vs Pr.CIT

Whether assessment framed by the AO and penalty proceedings initiated deserve to be upheld, where the assessee does not submit the requisite evidence, in respect of his claims for deduction and other expenses, before the AO or before the CIT(A) despite several opportunities - YES: HC

-Assessee's appeal allowed : ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-111-ITAT-MUM

DCIT Vs Blue Square Corporate Services Pvt Ltd

Whether without pointing out that the reasons recorded are not as per the provisions of section 147, the validity of reassessment cannot questioned - YES: ITAT

Whether failure of the AO to controvert the findings of the CIT(A) in respect of satisfaction of essentials required u/s 68 makes the addition towards bogus share premium receipts impermissible - YES: ITAT

-Revenue's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

2020-TIOL-110-ITAT-MUM

DCIT Vs Forbes Technosys Ltd

Whether where amounts are paid to employees for travelling & conveyance but the claims of the employees in respect of such expenditure are not received, the same is sufficient to infer that such provisioned expenditure is contingent in nature - NO: ITAT

Whether disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) is sustainable in case of short deduction of TDS - NO: ITAT

-Revenue's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

2020-TIOL-109-ITAT-MUM

Imperial Consultants And Securities Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether if the interest expenses incurred from earning interest income is out of of borrowed funds & has been allowed in the preceding AY, it cannot be disallowed u/s 57 - YES: ITAT

Whether no disallowance u/s 14A under the normal provision or under the MAT provision is tenable if the assessee has already disallowed the expenditure incurred for earning exempted income - YES: ITAT

-Assessee's appeal partly allowed : MUMBAI ITAT

2020-TIOL-108-ITAT-MUM

Navnidhi Steel And Engineering Company Pvt Ltd Vs PR.CIT

Whether the decision of AO to tax the profit element embedded in purchases made partly from suspicious entities, is sustainable, where the same is in keeping with judicial precedents and where the sales are not doubted - YES: ITAT

Whether therefore a revisionary order seeking to quash such assessment order is tenable, where it relies solely on a decision of the Apex Court, but without considering the difference in facts & circumstances - NO: ITAT

-Assessee's appeal allowed : MUMBAI ITAT

2020-TIOL-107-ITAT-MUM

DCIT Vs Sequent Scientific Ltd

Whether deduction u/s 10B is allowable in respect of a unit of a company, which was received by the assessee-company under a scheme of amalgamation - YES: ITAT

-Revenue's appeal partly allowed : MUMBAI ITAT

2020-TIOL-136-CESTAT-BANG

Castle Rock Launderette Vs CCT

ST - The assessee provided dry cleaning services but had not obtained Service Tax Registration and had not paid service tax on the taxable services rendered by it - Duty demand was raised along with interest and penalty - An amount paid by it during investigation was proposed to be appropriated - After considering the assessee's reply, the adjudicating authority confirmed duty demand after allowing the exemption available to the assessee and re-calculating the Service Tax payable along with interest and equivalent penalty - Such findings were sustained by Commr.(A) - Hence the present appeal.

Held - The only issue in the present case pertains to imposition of penalty u/s 77 & 78 - The assessee did not dispute the taxable nature of the services provided by it and paid service tax as soon as they were informed of their liability to do so - As per findings recorded by the original authority and by the appellate authority, the assessee paid the entire service tax with interest & also paid 25% of the penalty u/s 78 within 30 days of passing the order - In the ROM application filed by the assessee, the Commr.(A) allowed the same and modified the O-i-A to the extent of accepting payment of reduced penalty as per proviso to Section 78(1) of the Finance Act 1994 - Other demands of service tax, interest and other aspects stand undisturbed and the assessee has also paid the same - Since the Commissioner himself has accepted the reduced penalty by allowing the ROM application filed by the assessee, hence the relief sought has already been given by the Commr.(A) - Hence the O-i-A merits being upheld: CESTAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed : BANGALORE CESTAT

2020-TIOL-135-CESTAT-KOL

Jai Balaji Industries Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST & CE

CX - Credit cannot be denied in the hands of the recipient even if the duty was legally not payable by the supplier or that higher amount of duty has been paid by the supplier against whom the department has initiated proceedings - in the entire proceedings against the appellant for denial of credit, there is no allegation or finding that the appellant has intentionally availed irregular credit with ulterior motive or that the credit has been availed wrongly in collusion with the supplier - In absence thereof, denial of credit would be harsh and highly unwarranted - credit is legally eligible and, therefore, the impugned demand is set aside - appeal is allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT [para 8 to 10]

- Appeal allowed : KOLKATA CESTAT

2020-TIOL-134-CESTAT-MUM

S P Fabricators Vs CCE

CX - When the First Show Cause Notice was issued on the basis of EA 2000 Audit making certain charges against the appellant, then another show cause notice could not have been issued on the basis of the same EA 2000 Audit for the same period and which is contrary to the first show cause notice - Inasmuch as in the first Show Cause, the value is sought to be determined in terms of Section 4(1)(a) read with Rule 4 and 5 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, whereas in the second show cause notice, demand is sought to be made by invoking Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules - Both the appeals are, therefore, allowed and the matters are remanded to the adjudicating authority - Re-adjudication is required to be completed within six months: CESTAT [para 4.8, 5.1]

- Matter remanded : MUMBAI CESTAT

2020-TIOL-133-CESTAT-ALL

Derby Overseas Vs Principal Commissioner

Cus - The assessee-company imported Shredded Stainless Steel Scrap Grade 304 - On examining the same, the Customs Department opined that the same is not as per the declaration made by the assessee and that there was mis-declaration to the extent that Aluminum scrap was also found mixed in the scrap - SCN was issued to the assessee - On adjudication, the allegation of misdeclaration of description, quantity and classification of the goods, was upheld - The goods were confiscated with option of redemption fine being given and penalty was also imposed u/s 112 of the Customs Act 1962 - During pendency of appeal to the Commr.(A), the assessee filed declaration under the Indirect Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016 and deposited the entire duty with 25% penalty - A discharge certificate was issued by the designated authority accepting the payment as full and final settlement of the amounts due from the assessee - Further, immunity was granted from all proceedings under the Act - Meanwhile, the Commr.(A) held that the appeal filed was not covered under the Indirect Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme as the scheme applied only to those appeals pending before the Commr.(A) as on 01.03.2016 and that the present appeal was filed after such date - Deciding the issue on merits, the Commr.(A) dismissed the same.

Held - The discharge certificate was passed by the Designated Authority but the same was not accepted by the Commr.(A) - However, it is seen that the discharge certificate issued by the Designated Authority in terms of the Indirect Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme cannot be questioned by the Commr.(A) on grounds that the same was wrongly issued - Right or wrong, wherever the discharge certificate is issued in terms of the scheme, it is binding upon all authorities, including the Commr.(A) - As per Section 216 of the Scheme, the appeal pending before the Commr.(A) was to be disposed off accordingly and the Commr.(A) was not justified in finding fault with the order of the Designated Authority and in not accepting the same and by proceeding to decide the appeal on merits - Hence the O-i-A merits being set aside: CESTAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed : ALLAHABAD CESTAT