2020-TIOL-1199-HC-MAD-IT

CIT Vs Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd

Whether reopening on reasons which were already been subject matter of the proceedings u/s 143(3) or proceedings u/s 263 is bad in law - YES : HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-837-ITAT-DEL

Neelam Rani Nagpal Vs ITO

Whether it is fit case for remand where additions on account of undisclosed income are made and sustained by the lower authorities without recording any findings in respect of cash withdrawals made by the assessee & use of the withdrawn amount - YES: ITAT

- Case remanded: DELHI ITAT

2020-TIOL-836-ITAT-DEL

Suresh Kumar Agarwal Vs ACIT

Whether habitual investor cannot enter into the penny stock transaction of obtaining bogus long term capital gain - NO : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: DELHI ITAT

2020-TIOL-835-ITAT-BANG

Century Real Estate Holdings Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether the window for disallowance is indicated in section 14A and is only to the extent of disallowing expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to tax exempt income - YES: ITAT

Whether there can be no disallowance u/s 14A in the absence of exempt income - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: BANGALORE ITAT

2020-TIOL-834-ITAT-BANG

Candor Business Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs ITO

Whether payment of bonus to two director shareholders of company can be allowed if made as part of salary in terms of Board Resolution which is linked to services rendered by them - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: BANGALORE ITAT

2020-TIOL-197-AAR-GST

Methodex Systems Pvt Ltd

GST - The applicant company has its principal place of business at Indore, with production facility at Pithampur - The applicant had supplied several furniture items to a Govt Department and issued invoices charging tax @ 18%, by treating the supply of furniture as composite supply of furniture, where item-wise price of the furniture was charged in the invoice - The applicant approached the AAR seeking to know whether work related to supply, installation and fixing of customized furniture in a building is composite supply of goods or a works contract - The applicant also sought to know the applicable rate of GST on such supply, if it is so.

Held - The activities of the applicant, of supply, installation and fixing of furniture, is not classifiable under Heading 9954 - Construction service - The contract conforms to composite supply as per Section 2(30) of the CGST Act - The supply made by the applicant consists of two taxable supplies of goods and services which were naturally bundled and supplied in conjunction with each other, where the supply of goods is the principal supply - Such goods are classifiable under Heading 9403 of GST Tariff and are taxable at rate applicable at time of supply: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2020-TIOL-196-AAR-GST

Jabalpur Hotels Pvt Ltd

GST - The applicant company was established with the objective of constructing a hotel at Jabalpur - The hotel is in construction stage - The applicant approached the AAR seeking to know whether the ITC on purchase of lift would be available to the hotel as it has been used in the course of for furtherance of business.

Held - The ITC of tax paid on lifts procured and installed in the hotel building shall not be available to the applicant as the same is blocked in terms of Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, becoming an integral part of the building: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2020-TIOL-195-AAR-GST

Halliburton Offshore Services Inc

GST - The applicant company is engaged in providing oilfied services to Exploration and Production companies globally - The applicant contracted for supply of bundled oilfield services to support various oil & gas related operations in the KG Offshore, East Coast of Indian offshore waters - The applicant approached the AAR seeking to know GST liability on reimbursement received towards Lost in Hole/damages beyond repair equipment, under the contract with the customer - The applicant also sought to know if reimbursement received towards LIH equipment can be considered supply as per Section 7 of CGST Act and hence liable to GST.

Held - The reimbursement towards LIH equipment can be considered to be a supply u/s 7 of the CGST Act - Such amount is classifiable as Supply of Goods as per Section 7 of the Act - Depending on nature of actual goods involved in the relevant activity, their classification is as per HSN notified for the goods and the classification rules made in this regard - Hence the provisions for chargeability and levy of GST under the CGST Act and Rules as applicable to supply of goods will apply: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2020-TIOL-194-AAR-GST

Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute Of Good Governance And Policy Analysis

GST - The applicant is a society engaged in serving as a knowledge resource hub for promotion of goods governance - It aims to facilitate multi-disciplinary network of governance and to recognize and promote research, best practices and overall improvement in practices of governance - The applicant approached the AAR seeking to know whether the amount recovered by the applicant from other Government Departments for doing research work and study, which helps in making policies or understand its impact, would attract GST - It also sought to know if services provided by applicant to other Govt Departents are covered under Entry 8 of Exemption Notfn No 12/2017-CT(R).

Held - The amount recovered by the applicant from other Govt Departments for doing research work and study which helps make policies or understand their impact, are exempt, subject to satisfaction of conditions laid down in Entry 3 of Notfn No 12/2017-CT(R) - It has to be seen for each and every activity, whether pure services are provided to the Hovt by way of any activity in relation to any function entrusted to a panchayat under Article 243G of the Constitution or in relation to any function entrusted to a municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution - Hence if all condition in Entry 3 of the Notfn No 12/2017-CT(R) are satisfied, then the amount recovered by the applicant from other Govt Departments shall be exempt - Also, the applicant does not qualify to be Central Govt, State Govt or local authority - Hence servces provided by the applicant to other Govt agencies and Departments, are not exempt under Entry 8 of Notfn No 12/2017-CT(R): AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2020-TIOL-39-NAA-GST

Director General Of Anti-Profiteering Vs Adarsh Thought Works Pvt Ltd

GST - Anti Profiteering - A complaint was filed against the respondent-company, before the Rajasthan State Screening Committee, alleging that the respondent had profiteered from sale of flats in a residential project developed by it - It was alleged that the respondent had not passed on benefit of ITC by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the flat - Thereafter when the matter reached the DGAP, the respondent did not reply to any of the summons issued u/s 70 of the CGST Act or the calls by the DGAP to produce the relevant evidence - Having exhausted all options to collect the requisite documents, a team of officers visited the premises of the respondent, who then collected the necessary evidence and a statement of facts was signed by the respondent's staff members who were present there - Considering the evidence so collected, the DGAP proceeded to calculate the ITC required to be passed on by the respondent to each flat buyer or the profiteered amount as Rs 1.70 crores, which included 12% GST on the base profiteered amount - The DGAP claimed that the respondent contravened the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act in as much as the additional benefit of ITC @ 5.38% of the base price received by the respondent durng the relevant period, was not passed on to the flat buyers - It was also noted that investigation had accounted for 177 buyers only, whereas the respondent sold flats to 217 buyers - Hence it was observed that the benefit of ITC in respect of these 40 units also had to be calculated when the consideration was received from such units, by taking into account the proportionate ITC.

Held - The methodology adopted by the DGAP to compute the benefit of additional ITC required to be passed on by the respondent, is correct, logical and reasonable and is in consonance with provisions of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act and is reliable - The additional amount realized by the respondent, is directed to be refunded to the flat buyers concerned, along with interest @ 18% per annum, commencing from the date on which the amount was collected till the date on which payment is made u/r 133(3)(b) of the Rules - It is clear that the respondent denied benefit of ITC to the flat buyers - Hence the respondent is liable to face penalty u/s 171(3A) r/w Rule 133(3)(b) of the CGST Act - Notice be issued to the respondent, proposing to impose penalty: NAA

- Application disposed of: NAA

2020-TIOL-1033-CESTAT-DEL

Rajeev Khatri Vs CC

Cus - The issue arises for consideration is, whether the penalty has been rightly imposed under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 - Import of undeclared goods namely R-22 Gas Cylinders and Salaam Mishri was allegedly an "illegal import" in terms of Section 11A(a) of Customs Act, 1962 and these goods were allegedly "prohibited" goods in terms of Section 2(33) of the Act and were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d), (f), (g), (i), (j),(l) and (m) of the Act - In the impugned order, Adjudication authority while absolutely confiscating the R-22 Gas Cylinders, "Salaam Mishri" and 'Two gas burner Gas Stoves' under Section 111(d), (f), (g), (i), (j), (l) and (m) read with Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962 and holding M/s Pixel Overseas liable to penalty under Section 112(a) & 114AA; Mr. Izhar Siddique @ Izhar Khan and Shri Ramesh Wadhera liable to penalty of Rs. 1,36,56,080/- each, under Section 112 and Shri Deepak Kapoor liable to a penalty of Rs. 34,14,020 under Section 112(a), also imposed a penalty of Rs. 34,14,020/- on assessee under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 - It is evident that the assessee-CHA firm had known the said Shri Deepak Kapoor–Intermediary, who was bringing them the clearance work on regular basis - Further, the said Shri Deepak Kapoor was also known to Mr. Narinder Narula, Proprietor of the CHA firm - The assessee, being employee of the CHA firm, placed great reliance on Mr. Kapoor and thus, was negligent in ensuring the KYC compliance - Further, the assessee under the influence of Mr. Deepak Kapoor, filed the bills of entry without completing the KYC formalities - It is evident that no case of connivance is made out against assessee/employee i.e. no allegation or finding of any additional gain or reward received by him - At best, it appears that assessee has unknowingly abetted or been instrumental in nefarious activity of import of prohibited goods, by the actual importer- Mr. Ramesh Wadhera and the lender of the IEC code - In this view of the matter, the penalty imposed is very high and disproportionate to the offence by assessee - Accordingly, the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of Customs Act is reduced - Appeal is allowed in part: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: DELHI CESTAT