2020-TIOL-81-SC-IT

PR CIT Vs Rehab Housing Pvt Ltd

In writ, the Apex Court condones the delay and directs that notices be issued to the parties. It also directs that the matter be tagged with Civil Appeal No. 652 of 2016.

- Notice issued; SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2020-TIOL-80-SC-IT

CIT Vs United India Insurance Company

In writ, the Apex Court condones the delay and grants leave to the Revenue's SLP. It further directs that hearing be expedited and pleadings be completed meanwhile. It also directs that the matter be tagged with Civil Appeal No. 7681 of 2019.

- Notice issued: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2020-TIOL-79-SC-IT

Indus Towers Vs ACIT

In writ, the Apex Court directs that notice be issued to the parties. It further directs stay on the recovery of demand raised.

- Notice issued: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2020-TIOL-792-HC-DEL-IT

Jindal ITF Ltd Vs UoI

Whether Section 68 of the Act casts the initial onus upon the assessee to establish the proof of identity of loan depositors, their creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions - YES: HC

Whether when considering stay applications, the Revenue authorities can permit the assessee to pre-deposit less than twenty percent of the duty demanded, where the facts and circumstances allow such relaxation - YES: HC

Whether the high court can intervene where such relaxation is not allowed, considering that the identity of lenders, their creditworthiness & genuineness of transactions is in serious doubt - NO: HC

2020-TIOL-787-HC-P&H-IT

Ajay Chowdhury Vs UoI

In writ, the High Court finds no reason to interfere in the proceedings and directs the assessee to avail statutory remedy of appeal.

- Assessee's writ petition dismissed: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-786-HC-AHM-IT

PR CIT Vs MD International

In writ, the High Court holds that orders passed by the SETCOM in respect of two assessees herein & involving facts identical to those in the present case, has been sustained. Hence the orders passed in the case of the present assessee are sustained as well.

- Revenue's petitions dismissed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-785-HC-AHM-IT

Maulik Girish Nanavati Vs ACIT

In writ, the High Court directs that notice be issued to the parties. It also permits the Revenue to proceed with the SCN but also directs that final assessment order cannot be passed without prior information of this court.

- Notice issued: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-784-HC-AHM-IT

PR CIT Vs Pratham Developers

Whether provisions of Section 80IB mandate obtaining commencement certificate from local authority for development and construction of residential unit having area exceeding 1500 sq feet - NO: HC

Whether deduction u/s 80IB(10) can be allowed where it is claimed only in respect of those residential units whose built up area exceeds 1500 sq feet - YES: HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-783-HC-MUM-IT

PR CIT Vs National Health And Education Society

Whether provisions of Section 11(4A) can be invoked to contrue a pharmacy within a hospital as a separate business where the trust running such hospital was granted approval u/s 10(23C)(via) - NO: HC

Whether where the pharmacy store is anciliary to the dominant object of running the hospital, can income from the pharmacy be treated as business income - NO: HC

2020-TIOL-782-HC-AHM-IT

PR CIT Vs Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd

On appeal, the High Court admits the Revenue's appeal regarding the issues of provision for Employee Long Term Compensation Plan, depreciation on items connected with VSAT and deduction u/s 80IC. However, donation paid by assessee cannot be claimed as an expense in the P&L a/c since it was not incurred wholly & exclusively for business purposes u/s 37(1).

- Revenue's appeal partly allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-449-ITAT-DEL

Mitutoyo South Asia Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether even if error is unintentional and and tax thereon has been offered voluntarily, it does not release assessee from mischief of penal proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: DELHI ITAT

2020-TIOL-448-ITAT-BANG

Opto Circuits India Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether failure to issue notice u/s 143(2) while framing assessment on the basis of revised return, is bad in law and cannot be sustained - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: BANGALORE ITAT

2020-TIOL-447-ITAT-PUNE

Kavita Mandar Bhagwat Vs ITO

Whether claim of bad and doubtful debts is not allowable u/s 57(iii) as it is not in nature of expenditure - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: PUNE ITAT

SERVICE TAX

Latur And Osmanabad Mathadi And Unprotected Labour Board Vs CCE, C & ST

ST - During the relevant period, duty demand was raised in respect of the assessee herein, along with interest and penalty u/s 78 of the Finance Act 1994 on account of it having provided manpower recruitment or supply agency service.

Held - The grounds sought to be raised in the appeal arise from provisions of law and from settled judicial precedents - Hence the miscellaneous application for raising additional ground is allowed - The additional grounds bring up issues on which the original authority was not provided an opportunity to record its finding and the same is necessary for disposal of the appeal - Hence the subject order is quashed and the matter is to be considered afresh upon considering the additional grounds: CESTAT

- Assessee's application allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE

Mangalam Cement Ltd Vs CCGST

CX - CENVAT - There was a dispute at the supplier's end at the end of M/s SECL and WCL, Nagpur regarding inclusion of certain elements in the cost of the coal namely amount of royalty, SED (stowing excise duty), Niryat Tax, Development Tax and Environment Tax etc. - It is the contention of the Department at the supplier's end that the element of the cost of royalty, SED etc. need to be included in the value of the coal for the purpose of payment of excise duty - The supplier of the coal namely M/s South Eastern Coal Fields Limited and Western Coal Fields Limited paid duty to the Department under protest on the elements such as royalty, SED, Niryat Tax, Development Tax etc. and issued supplementary invoices to the appellant for the extra amount charged by them - As a sequel, the appellant took Cenvat credit of the additional amount of excise duty paid on the supplementary invoices by them - Department entertained a view that the appellant should not have taken Cenvat credit on the strength of supplementary invoices issued by M/s SECL as the same falls under the exclusion clause of Rule 9(1)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - demands confirmed, hence appeals before CESTAT.

Held: Matter is no longer res-integra - Tribunal has by its final order No. 52728 of 2018 dated 8 August 2018 in the case of M/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd. allowed the Cenvat Credit holding that there cannot be suppression of fact when the issue of liability of payment of Excise duty at the end of the coal companies was a debatable issue which is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court; that rule 9(1)(b) of CCR is inapplicable so as to deny credit - Hence, the appellant is entitled for taking Cenvat credit on the strength of supplementary invoices - appeals allowed: CESTAT [para 5, 6]

- Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2020-TIOL-568-CESTAT-HYD

Madras Cements Ltd Vs CCE

CX - In order to expand the production facilities, the appellant had constructed clinkerisation and thermal power plant in September 2006 within the factory premises - For installation/construction of such facilities, the appellant had procured various capital items and availed CENVAT credit of central excise duty paid on those goods by considering the same as inputs - The credit availed by the appellant was disputed by the department on the ground that the plant erected at site are embedded to the earth and as such, such plant facilities cannot be considered as excisable goods for the purpose of availment of CENVAT credit - department also alleged that the appellant should have availed 50% of the duty paid as CENVAT credit in respect of capital goods during the year of receipt and the balance in the subsequent financial years; accordingly, demand was issued for recovery of the alleged excess availment - demand confirmed by lower authorities, hence appeal to CESTAT.

Held: Documents/records submitted by the appellant clearly demonstrate that the goods in question were used for erection/manufacture of various capital goods namely clinkerisation plant, power plant etc., installed within the factory of manufacture of cement - Thus, as per the definition of inputs contained in Rule 2(k) of CCR, the appellant should be eligible for the CENVAT benefit on the disputed goods used for manufacture of capital goods - Madras High Court in the case of Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd - 2017-TIOL-1357-HC-MAD-CX have held that various structural items used to erect foundations should fall under the scope and ambit of the definition of 'input' (effective up to 07.07.2009) for availing CENVAT benefit - In the appellant's own case, Tribunal vide final order dated 28.02.2019 has also extended the CENVAT benefit on the disputed goods, by considering the same as inputs - impugned orders are, therefore, set aside and appeals are allowed: CESTAT [para 7 to 10]

- Appeals allowed: HYDERABAD CESTAT

TII

TP - Exclusion of certain comparable companies by ITAT is upheld where such entities are functionally dis-similar to assessee-company: HC