Aditya Satish Parakh Vs ACIT

Whether addition made by the AO as unexplained cash credits based on stop gap arrangement is justified, even when the source of income is disclosed - NO: ITAT

Whether the AO can make additions under head unexplained expenditure on account of stamp duty, registration fee, when the source of income is already disclosed - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's Appeal Allowed: PUNE ITAT

Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd Vs ADDL CIT

Whether disallowance u/s 14 r/w Rule 8D should be restricted only to the extent of the expenditure incurred for earning the dividend income - YES: ITAT

Whether the provision for NPA made in accordance with the RBI prudential norms by the NBFC does not constitute allowable expenses under normal provisions of the Act - YES: ITAT

Whether where the NBFC has to specifically disclose the provision for NPA separately without netting it against the value of assets, it cannot be treated as a provision for diminution in the value of asset u/s 115JB(2) - YES: ITAT

Whether where the NBFC is incorporated under the Companies Act but prepares books of accounts as per RBI Rules, it cannot be said that provisions of section 115JB is not applicable merely because the assessee does not prepare books of accounts as per the Companies Act - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed/ Revenue's appeal partly allowed: KOLKATA ITAT

Ashish Kumar Barh Vs ITO

Whether the AO is justified in adopting the gross profit of suppressed sales as the income of the assessee, instead of the net profit on such suppressed sales - NO: ITAT

Whether the disallowance of contract receipts u/s 40A(3) of the Act & Section 40(a)(ia), can be made when profits have been estimated as a percentage of turnover - NO: ITAT

Whether when physical stock was more than the stock recorded in the books, can the difference be assessed as income - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's Appeal Partly Allowed: KOLKATA ITAT

ITO Vs Vidhi Infrastructure Pvt Ltd

Whether where the Inter Corporate Deposit from a company has been received by the assessee without being a shareholder, such ICD cannot assume the colour of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - YES: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD ITAT

Asset Investment Services Vs ACIT

Whether rental income from commercial asset used for main business of leasing of properties is taxable under head 'income from business and profession' - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

2020-TIOL-311-CESTAT-HYD

ST - The assessee-company manufactures pipes and undertook activity of laying out pipes at the customer's site - For transporting the pipes from its factory to the customer's site, the assessee availed transportation services during the relevant period, but did not pay service tax thereon - An SCN was issued to the assessee proposing demand under reverse charge mechanism on the transportation services received - On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest - Penalties were imposed too - Hence the present appeal.

Held - There is no doubt that the assessee is executing works contract, but during its activity, it received services of transportation and as per Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, it is required to pay service tax, being a service recipient, under reverse charge mechanism - Hence the assessee is liable to pay service tax with interest - Considering that the assessee is entitled to cenvat credit, therefore the provisions of Section 80 warrant being invoked - Hence the penalty imposed on the assessee is quashed & the assessee is at liberty to avail credit of service tax paid, being a recipient of transportation service: CESTAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: HYDERABAD CESTAT

2020-TIOL-390-HC-MUM-CX

Commissioner of CGST & CE Vs Capacite Infrastructure Ltd

CX - During the relevant period, an audit was conducted at the premises of the assessee-company - The Revenue claimed that the assessee availed benefit of exemption Notfn No 47/2002 and Notfn No 6/2006, in respect of pipe fittins whereas the exemption was available on pipes only and not on pipe fittings - SCN was issued to the assessee for recovery of duty with interest and penalty - On adjudication, the Commr. reduced the quantum of the duty demanded, nonetheless, sustaining interest & penalty - On appeal, the Tribunal held that the exempted was available only to pipes and not pipe fittings, but also observed that the proceedings had been initiated beyond period of limitation and that the benefit of extended limitation u/s 11A of the Act was not available as there was no suppression of facts by the assessee - Hence the present appeal by the Revenue.

Held - The demand has been raised beyond the normal period of limitation - The Revenue's counsel claimed that the contingency u/s 11A of the CEA 1944 namely suppression of facts arises in the present case so as to justify invoking extended period of limitation - The Revenue's counsel claimed that the assessee sought to avail exemption on pipe fittings even though such benefit was not allowed on such item and that the same constitutes suppression of facts - It is seen in the returns filed by the assessee that they clearly mentioned that benefit was availed on pipe fittings - The same is also demonstrated from the invoices on record - There is no record of any embargo on the Revenue to examine such returns and invoices before audit proceedings - In such circumstances, the Tribunal's findings of there being no suppression of facts, does not warrant any interference with - No substantial question of law emerges: HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-308-CESTAT-DEL

Cus - The assessee filed BoE for clearance of Toyota Land Cruiser, wherein the year of manufacture was shown to be 1998 - On investigation, the Department found that the year of manufacture of the car was in fact 2003 and that the assessee had not complied with the pre-import condition - SCN was issued proposing to confiscate the vehicle u/s 111(d) & 111(m) of the Customs Act, r/w Section 3(3) of the FTDR Act 1992 and to impose penalty u/s 112 - On adjudication, the value of the car was assessed, fine & penalty were imposed - Later, the Commr.(A) upheld the O-i-O - On appeal, the Tribunal quashed the O-i-A and remanded the matter to the original authority to reconsider the matter after cross examination of a representative from M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motors - In remand proceedings, the adjudicating authority rejected the invoice produced for Toyota Land Cruiser and redetermined the value of the car and directed that the same be assessed as a 2003 model vehicle - The vehicle was also directed to be confiscated u/s 111(d) & 111(m) of the Customs Act r/w Section 3(3) of FTDR - Redemption and penalty was also imposed - On appeal, the Commr.(A) reduced the quantum of redemption fine and penalty - Hence the present appeal by the Revenue.

Held: The assessee purchased the used vehicle of 1998 model from a dealer in Dubai for price of 45000 Dirhams - Invoice of the same is on record - The Revenue alleged that the assessee tampered with the chassis number of the vehicle, whereas enquiries made from M/s TKM reveal that the vehicle is of 2003 model - Hence the assessee had been charged with mis-declaration of year of manufacture and valuation with intent to evade payment of Customs duty - The Commr.(A) concluded that invoice value could not be rejected in absence of any physical evidence of tampering & based solely on clarification given by an interested third party - Besides, the Tribunal had remanded the matter to enable the assessee to cross examine the signatory of the documents relied on by the adjudicatory authority - Instead of such signatory, some other person had been produced for cross-examination & the latter expressed ignorance about the contents of the letter signed by the former or the reason behind issuing the letter - Hence the O-i-A dismissing the Revenue's appeal does not suffer from any infirmity & merits being upheld: CESTAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: BANGALORE CESTAT