CIT Vs Vodafone East Ltd

Whether 586-day delay in filing appeal is to be condoned where such delay is caused due to the assessee's neglect to take the necessary steps in respect of the appeal - NO: HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-954-HC-AHM-IT

CIT Vs ONGC Ltd

Whether self certification on part of employees is adequate for assessee not to deduct tax from reimbursement of uniform allowance towards expenditure incurred for uniforms - YES : HC

Whether such self certification is though good enough for employer not to deduct tax at source, but does not protect employee if his claim regarding actual expenditure is incorrect - YES : HC

2020-TIOL-953-HC-ALL-IT

Kesharwani Sheetalaya Sahsaon Allahabad Vs CIT

Whether if burden of proving source of cash being agricultural income used by partners to make deposit in their capital account has been sufficiently explained, addition u/s 68 can not be made in the hands of firm - YES: HC

- Assessee's appeal allowed :ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-634-ITAT-MUM

B And M Buildcon Vs DCIT

Whether addition can be made in respect of assessments which have become final if no incriminating material is found during search operations or during 153A proceedings - NO : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

ACIT Vs Amartara Pvt Ltd

Whether disallowance u/s 14A is to be restricted to the exempt income earned by the assessee - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

Magic Landcon LLP Vs Pr.CIT

Whether it is settled law that power of revision u/s 263 cannot be exercised where AO took one of the several views possible in respect of a certain issue - YES: ITAT

Whether such revisionary power can be exercised where the AO conducted adequate enquiry into the limited point which is in issue - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT

Bindyavasini Projects Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether disallowance u/s 14A can be made when there is no finding by the AO or the CIT(A) about any incriminating material to show that the assessee incurred expenses incurred for earning exempt income - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: KOLKATA ITAT

Arpit Khairari Vs ITO

Whether re-assessment notice merits being sustained where the assessee submits requisite documents before the lower authorities after passage of 12 years & where the same are found to be self-serving - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: JAIPUR ITAT

DCIT Vs Man Prakash Talkies Pvt Ltd

Whether matter warrants remand so that the LTCG from sale of property be re-calculated after considering the indexed cost of acquisition of the same - YES: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal partly allowed: JAIPUR ITAT

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Applicant alleges profiteering by respondent inasmuch as it is alleged that the respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate from 18% to 5% w.e.f 15.11.2017 by way of commensurate reduction in price - it is alleged that the respondent increased the base price of ‘Dinner Veg.' From Rs.862/- to Rs.929/- and that of ‘Dinner Non-Veg.” From Rs.969/- to Rs.1039/- when the fact is that the GST rate was reduced from 18% to 5% - applicant has enclosed copies of invoices dated 09.11.2017 and 15.11.2017 to substantiate their allegations - DGAP has in its detailed report dated 24.09.2019 submitted that the respondent M/s Barbeque Nation has profiteered by an amount of Rs.32,58,84,772/- which includes GST on the base profiteered amount - DGAP in its report has submitted that he has computed the profiteered amount by comparing the average base prices of the products/SKUs which the respondent was charging during the pre-rate reduction period viz. 01.11.2017 to 14.11.2017 or the earlier period if no sale of a particular product had been made during the subject period with the monthly average base prices of the same product/SKU of which the supply was made by the respondent - NAA is of the view that the methodology employed by the DGAP is not in consonance with the methodology which has been determined by the Authority in respect of all such cases of tax reduction in which benefit was required to be passed on by the registered persons as per the provisions of s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Furthermore, Authority has consistently held that while computing the profiteered amount the average pre-rate reduction base price of each SKU should be compared with the actual post rate reduction base price of the same SKU so that every recipient gets the benefit of tax reduction on each purchase made by him as is the mandate of section 171 otherwise it would result in denial of benefit to the eligible customers and which would amount to contravention of s.171 as well as Article 14 of the Constitution - comparing the average pre-rate reduction base prices with the average post-rate reduction base prices runs completely contrary to the methodology determined by the Authority as well as the provisions of s.171 of the Act - it also leads to the conclusion that the profiteered amount calculated by the DGAP on the basis of the above methodology is not accurate and hence the same cannot be accepted to be correct - moreover, the quantum of benefit computed by the DGAP on each SKU which is required to be passed on to the eligible buyers is also not correct - respondent cannot be allowed to enrich himself at the expense of the customers who are voiceless, unorganised and vulnerable and appropriate the benefit of tax reduction which he is not required to pass on from his own pocket as it has been granted by the Central and the State governments from their scarce tax revenue - reasons given by DGAP for diverting from the approved methodology on the ground that the invoice wise details of outward taxable supplies were not supplied by respondent for the period from 15.11.2017 to 31.03.2019 are not convincing and justified as the respondent was bound to supply the above details - DGAP has also not recorded in his report as to whether the applicant no. 1 was eligible for refund of the profiteered amount or not - report dated 24.09.2019 by the DGAP cannot be accepted and, therefore, the DGAP is directed to conduct further investigation in the present case under rule 133(4) of the Rules in consonance with the directions (as detailed) and submit fresh report as per provisions of rule 129(6) of the Rules - report is to be submitted within three months - order passed on 21.05.2020 keeping in view the provisions of notification 35/2020-CT: NAA

- Interim order passed: NAA

Bengal Bitumen Vs CCT

On considering the revision petition, the High Court holds that as the applicant-assessee made the requisite pre-deposit, the appeal be disposed of within three months' time and till disposal thereof, no coercive action be taken against the assessee.

- Revision petition allowed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

SERVICE TAX

CENTRAL EXCISE

2020-TIOL-760-CESTAT-DEL

Godrej Consumer Products Ltd Vs CCE & CGST

CX - It is the submission of the appellant that the MS Structure is neither fabricated nor has been erected post fabrication by the appellant, but it has been purchased from the manufacturer of the boiler, the capital goods itself - The said boilers are used in manufacture of appellant's final product - It is further emphasized that the boiler manufacturer himself is selling the structure, it being utmost necessary for the said boiler to be put to use - CENVAT credit is admissible - impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

CUSTOMS

TII

TP - High volume of AMP expenditure dehors any evidence towards understanding, arrangement or action in concert, makes AMP an international transactions: ITAT

TP - Harmonious interpretation of section 2(28C) and 92CA would justify action of Additional CIT done in capacity of JCIT: ITAT

TIOL CORPLAWS

SEBI -if UPSI ceases to exist from date of its publication and shares are sold by noticee one day after BSE has been informed about UPSI, there is no violation of SEBI act and regulations: SEBI

IBC - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is not recovery proceeding, same can't be used for any purpose other than for resolution of insolvency, or liquidation: NCLAT

Competition Act - Charges of abuse of dominant position are not sustainable where no evidence is put forth to substantiate such allegations: CCI