PSTS Heavy Lift And Shift Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether if earning of rental income is exclusive or main business, then income earned by way of letting out of asset is taxable as business income and is not taxable under the Head 'Income from house property' - YES: HC

- Assessee's appeal allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

PR CIT Vs Vilson Particle Board Industries Ltd

Whether there is requirement of providing pre-decisional hearing by AO to assessee before forming opinion to submit proposal for special audit - YES: HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed : BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-204-ITAT-PUNE

Akshay Ashok Choure Vs ITO

Whether when the assessee fails to submit economic or financial material evidence justifying economic gains arising out of its penny stock, additions are to be upheld - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: PUNE ITAT

Ashwani Atrish Vs ITO

Whether in case of re-assessment the AO is free to make additions on grounds other than for which the proceedings were initiated - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT

2020-TIOL-202-ITAT-DEL

ACIT Vs DR Exports International

Whether order of the CIT(A) based solely on additional evidence, without permitting the AO to examine the same, is a valid order - NO: ITAT

Whether payment of commission to the non-resident foreign agents, who render services outside India come under the purview of section 195 - NO: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal partly allowed: DELHI ITAT

Tax Bar Association Vs UoI

GST - Petition has been filed by the Tax Bar Association raising the issue about non-functionality of the respondent's portal i.e. www.gst.gov.in, as a consequence of which, various assessees are unable to upload their returns both GSTR9 and GSTR9C - In view of the fact that the portal was having problems, the respondents issued a notification 6/2020-CT dated 3rd February, 2020 requiring the assessees (Rajasthan) to furnish their returns under Section 44 of the GST Act read with Rule 80 of the Rules for the Financial Year 2017-18 by 5th February, 2020; that when an assessee attempted to upload the returns/forms in GSTR9 and GSTR9C on 31.01.2020 at 5:09 PM, the website of the Govt. noted "Dear Tax Payer 1,50,000 tax payers are already submitting their returns at this moment… Please wait for your turn in a few minutes… Thank you for your patience" - Similarly attempts were made thereafter on the self-same date at 6:58 PM as well as 7:50 PM with the same result; that subsequent attempts were made by the advocates/tax consultants to upload the assessees' returns on 3rd February as well as 4th February, 2020 (in view of the extension granted) but in spite of several such attempts, they have not been able to upload the same; that on verification of the portal on 5th February, it appears that software glitch requiring the assessee to deposit "late fee" has been corrected and attempts are being made by various assessees within the State to upload their returns/forms in course of the day.

Held: Keeping the aforesaid situation being faced by assessee in view, Bench is of the considered opinion that an interim order needs to be passed in light of the fact that the GST portal of the Govt. of India has not been effectively functioning and clearly there appears to be a physical limit, to which extent returns/forms can be uploaded on any one day (apart from admitted intermittent technical shutdowns) - Bench is prima facie satisfied that even if an assessee is ready and willing to comply with the statutory duty, so far as filing of returns are concerned, the website appears to be having technical bottlenecks, which appears to limit the opportunity of an assessee from uploading the forms - Consequently, Bench directs that the petitioner Association and the assessee, for whom they represent, may keep uploading their returns at the earliest possible and it is directed that no late fee shall be charged till 12th of February, 2020 for uploading - The respondents are directed to enable compliance of such uploading by making necessary/consequential corrections on its official portal - Bench also directs that the Union of India may file an affidavit by the portal operators regarding the status of its working and the magnitude or the ability of such portal or system for accepting a requisite number of returns/forms; that if necessary, the Union of India may also direct the service provider to enhance its capacity to accept returns/forms - Since it is well-settled that where the last date of submission has been prescribed by law, it would be incumbent on the part of the revenue to provide for adequate facility for accepting such declarations or returns or forms within the period stipulated - Matter to be listed on 12.02.2020: High Court

- Interim order passed: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-251-CESTAT-MUM

Shree Engineering Vs CCGST

ST - Appellant has not set out any ground explaining the reason for non-deposit of the service tax with the Government, even though collected from the customers, for the taxable services provided - demand rightly confirmed along with interest and penalties - appeal being devoid of merits, is rejected: CESTAT [para 5, 6]

- Appeal rejected: MUMBAI CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE

2020-TIOL-252-CESTAT-DEL

Jai Bhawani Concast Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal of SS Ingots without payment of central excise duty - demand confirmed along with imposition of penalties etc. - appeal to CESTAT.

Held: Commissioner has neither followed the provisions of Section 9D of the CEA, 1944, nor the law laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of G-Tech Industries - 2016-TIOL-2749-HC-P&H-CX - therefore, statements recorded under Section 14 of the CEA, cannot be relied upon and hence has to be eschewed from the evidence - Adjudicating authority has also not dealt with the stand of appellant that they do not have manufacturing capacity to manufacture the goods as alleged by the department - moreover, the department has also not enquired at the end of the buyers and there is no positive evidence adduced by the department - since the demand has been confirmed on the basis of assumption and presumption, the demand of Rs. 44,06,966/- on the alleged 2118.733 MT of SS Ingots clandestinely manufactured and cleared during the period 18.08.2002 to 16.12.2002 is set aside - penalty on Director is also set aside - however, demand on the alleged shortages found in finished goods and raw materials is hereby confirmed since admitted by the authorised signatory and which duty has been deposited during investigation: CESTAT [para 6 to 8, 11]

- Appeal partly allowed: DELHI CESTAT

TP - Keeping with settled law, losses incurred by a comparable company can solely form grounds to reject such company: ITAT

TP - Stay on recovery of outstanding amount of duty demanded is warranted, where assessee simultaneously undertakes to forfeit its claim for outstanding refund: ITAT

TIOL CORPLAWS

Arbitration - Section 11 can be filed before Court where subject matter of arbitration is situated & not where subject matter of suit is situated : HC

NI Act - Criminal prosecution initiated u/s 138 r/w section 141 against Corporate Debtor does not stand terminated by operation of provisions of IBC, 2016: HC