 |
|
2020-TIOL-NEWS-240| October 10, 2020
|
|
|
Dear Member,
Sending following links. Warm Regards,
TIOL Content Team
TIOL PRIVATE LIMITED.
For assistance please call us at + 91 850 600 0282 or email us at helpdesk@tiol.in. |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
INCOME TAX |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-TIOL-1202-ITAT-HYD
Juveria Begum Vs ITO
Whether amount spent on renovation of a residential house is allowable as exempt u/s 54F, since it amounts to construction of a residential house - YES: ITAT
- Case remanded: HYDERABAD ITAT
2020-TIOL-1201-ITAT-MUM
Tata Sky Ltd Vs ACIT
Whether if there is no exempt income earned for the relevant year, then no disallowance is to be made u/s 14A - YES : ITAT
- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI ITAT
2020-TIOL-1193-ITAT-DEL
ACIT Vs Dlf Ltd
Whether penaly u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable, in absence of any evidence regarding furnishing of inccurate particulars of income or concealment - NO: ITAT
- Revenue's appeal dismissed: DELHI ITAT
ACIT Vs KK Exports
Whether CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition on account of bogus purchases, when the assessment was made on the findings of survey action conducted on Sh. Sanjay Chowdhary and his concerns, and he has accepted that he was not carrying out any sale and purchase of diamonds and was engaged in providing accommodation entries of sale and purchase - Yes: ITAT
- Revenue's appeal dismissed: DELHI ITAT
DCIT Vs Future Ideas Company Ltd
Whether if the AO has come to a finding and taken a possible view in the matter after application of mind, the conditions precedent for the CIT for invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act did not exist - YES : ITAT
- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT
Diamond Enterprises Vs ACIT
Whether income arising to a developer can be assessed without allowing development expenses to be incurred qua relevant project in future, simply because same had not been incurred/ accrued - NO: ITAT
- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI ITAT
DCIT Vs Ideal Heights Pvt Ltd
Whether integral parts of the housing project, the profit derived from sale of car parking space as well as on PLC & HEC is eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB (10) of the Act since deduction u/s 80 IB is available in respect of eligible housing project - YES : ITAT
- Revenue's appeal dismissed: KOLKATA ITAT
DCIT Vs M/s Adani Bunkering Pvt Ltd
Whether entity carrying out manufacturing activities in SEZ Unit are entitled to claim deduction u/s 10AA - YES: ITAT
- Revenue's appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD ITAT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GST CASE |
|
|
|
|
|
INDIRECT TAX |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SERVICE TAX
Abm Knowledgeware Ltd Vs CCGST
ST - Issue is whether life/health insurance used/utilized for the benefit of the employees should be considered as 'input service' defined under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
Held: On perusal of the case records, Bench finds that the nature of use of the disputed service has not been properly dealt with by the authorities below - Since the definition of input service w.e.f 01.04.2011 clearly excludes life insurance from its purview, when used for the personal benefit of the employee, in absence of ascertainment of actual use, it is difficult to address the issue in hand, whether the credit should be extended or not - Hence, the matter is required to be examined at the original level for correct appreciation with regard to fulfilment of the requirement of the above statutory provision – Order set aside and matter remanded: CESTAT [para 5]
- Matter remanded: MUMBAI CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2020-TIOL-1499-CESTAT-CHD
CCE & ST Vs Som Sugandh Industries
CX - Issue is whether the single member bench is having the jurisdiction to decide the issue involving only interest irrespective of any amount in terms of Sec. 35D (3) of Central Excise Act, 1944 or not.
Held: Section 35D (3) of CEA, 1944 restricts the powers of Single Member Bench to hear the cases where the dispute is other than determination of any question having a relation to rate of excise duty or value of goods for the purpose of assessment is in issue or the fine or penalty involved does not exceed Rs. 50 Lakhs - It is settled law that the provision of Section 35D (3) of the Act has to be dealt as it is and no word can be edited or deleted while interpreting the said provision - The Apex Court in the case of Commercial Taxes Officer vs. Bombay Machinery Store - 2020-TIOL-89-SC-CT held that "The Tax Administration authority cannot give their own interpretation of legislative provisions on the basis of their own perception of trade practice. The administrative exercise, in effect, would result in supplying words to legislative provisions, as if to cure omissions of the legislature." - Reliance placed by the AR in the case of Reva Electric Car Pvt. Ltd. to say that the Karnataka High Court has dealt with the issue of interest is not acceptable as in the said case the interest was not the only issue but the interest alongwith the amount of CENVAT credit was claimed as refund u/r 5 of CCR, therefore, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of D.J. Malpani - 2019-TIOL-149-SC-CX-LB ), Bench is of the view that the High Court had no occasion to deal with the issue of only interest involvement - It is clear that the Single Member Bench of this Tribunal is having the jurisdiction to decide the issue of interest irrespective of monetary limit - The objections raised by the Revenue are answered that the Single Member Bench of this Tribunal is having the jurisdiction to decide the issue of interest irrespective of any amount - matter is listed for final hearing on 27.10.2020 alongwith the stay application: CESTAT [para 13, 16 to 18]
- Matter listed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT
2020-TIOL-1488-CESTAT-KOL
Eastern Chemofarb Ltd Vs CCE
CX - Assessee is in appeal against impugned order upholding demand of Central Excise duty consequent to denial of Cenvat credit for the period from April 2011 to December 2011 vide Order passed by Commissioner - Since the final product is exempted from payment of Central Excise duty, no duty liability arises even if the same is cleared for domestic consumption - However, assessee has cleared the said exempted goods for export outside India - The general provisions contained in Credit Rules provides that credit is not allowed to be claimed on inputs if the same is used in manufacture of exempted goods as would be clearly discernible on perusal of Sub-Rule (1) to (4) of Rule 6 - However, Sub-Rule (6) of Rule 6 carves out an exception to provide that if the goods are cleared to SEZ or a 100% EOUs, EHTP the restrictions contained in said rules shall not apply, clearly implying that final products which have been exported would not be denied of input credit benefit - Provision has also been made in Rule 6(6)(v) to state that goods cleared for export under bond in terms of Central Excise Rules shall also not be denied input credit, which also clearly implies that assessee shall be allowed to avail credit on inputs used in exported manufactured goods - Subsequent amendment made in Notfn 42/2001 to do away with the requirement of following the bond related procedure in case of goods which are otherwise chargeable to 'NIL' rate of duty or wholly exempted is merely a procedure and has no relation whatsoever with the credit entitlement under Credit Rules - The disallowance of credit by both the authorities is not proper - The issue has already been dealt by Tribunal in case of Jolly Board Ltd 2014-TIOL-316-CESTAT-MUM - It is also emphasised and constantly held by Tribunal that the policy of Govt. of India is to promote the export of goods and not to export the domestic taxes and levies so as not to render the goods costlier in international market and un-competitive - Assessee is duly entitled to avail credit and therefore, the impugned duty demand is not sustainable: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT
CUSTOMS
2020-TIOL-1694-HC-MUM-CUS
Sajid Mohammed Maulavi Vs UoI
Cus - Seizure of gold - Petitioner prays for a declaration that the action of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in not releasing the seized gold under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 as illegal; for setting aside and quashing notices dated 26.03.2020 and 27.05.2020 issued by the office of Respondent No.4; to direct the Respondents to release the seized gold weighing 699.88 grams valued at Rs.27,08,136.00 to the Petitioner; to drop the proceedings initiated against the Petitioner under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.
Held: President of India has promulgated an Ordinance called the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance No.2 of 2020 dated 31.03.2020 extending the period of limitation provided for in various statutes from 20.03.2020 to 29.06.2020 to 30.06.2020, which was further extended to 30.09.2020 vide notification dated 27.06.2020 - Extended period of limitation upto six months as per the first proviso to Sub Section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act stood extended by Section 6 of the Ordinance till 29.09.2020 - This is fortified by the order of the Supreme Court dated 23.03.2020 passed in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India read with Article 141 thereof - It is during such extended limitation period that Joint Commissioner of Customs, Pune has issued show-cause notice to the Petitioner under Section 124(a) of the Customs Act dated 21.09.2020 calling upon the Petitioner to show-cause in writing before the adjudicating authority as to why the seized gold should not be confiscated besides imposition of penalty - It is evident that show-cause notice under Section 124(a) has been issued to the Petitioner within the extended limitation period, therefore, the rigour of Sub Section (2) of Section 110 would not be applicable in the case of the Petitioner and consequently, question of returning the seized goods to the Petitioner under Section 110(2) would not arise - Bench is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the Petitioner - That apart, when show-cause notice has been issued, Petitioner should respond to the same so that the adjudicating authority may pass an appropriate order, one way or the other, in accordance with law - Bench is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed: High Court [para 24 to 28]
- Petition dismissed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-1489-CESTAT-MUM
Vijayshree Alloys Pune Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - The assessee had filed the Bill of Entry for clearance of "Aluminium Scrap Tread" - The case of department is that the declaration made in respect of goods as per the Bill of Entry was different than the goods actually imported by assessee inasmuch as, out of the total quantity of goods imported by assessee, goods weighing 13.5 MT were found to be old and used pipes, classifiable under CTH 7608 with 10% BCD - Since, correct information was not furnished in import documents, the transaction value was appropriately rejected under Rule 12 of CVR, 2007 and the value was redetermined considering the same as serviceable goods - Assessee had not submitted any plausible evidence either before the authorities below or the Tribunal that the goods in question were corresponding to the declaration made in Bill of Entry - Thus, assessee is exposed to the consequences provided under statute for payment of differential duty, fine and penalty - Therefore, the orders passed by the authorities below are sustainable and cannot be interfered with at this juncture - No merit found in the appeal filed by assessee: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TIOL PRIVATE LIMITED.
TIOL HOUSE, 490, Udyog Vihar, Phase - V,
Gurgaon, Haryana - 122001, INDIA
Board :
+91 124-6427300
Fax: + 91 124-6427310
Web: https://taxindiaonline.com
Email: updates@tiol.in
__________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY/PROPRIETARY NOTE.
The Document accompanying this electronic transmission contains information from TIOL PRIVATE LIMITED., which is confidential, proprietary or copyrighted and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named on this transmission. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. This prohibition includes, without limitation, displaying this transmission or any portion thereof, on any public bulletin board. If you are not the intended recipient of this document, please return this document to TIOL PRIVATE LIMITED. immediately |
|
|
|
