Like TIOL on Facebook Follow TIOL on Twitter Subscriber TIOL on YouTube

2020-TIOL-NEWS-282| December 01, 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.
TIOL Mail Update
INCOME TAX

2020-TIOL-2046-HC-MAD-IT

Krishnaswami Vijayakumar Vs Principal Director of Income Tax

In writ, the High Court observes that the present petition has been rendered infructuous since the SCN was followed by a prosecution order & such order was not challenged before this bench or before the Single Judge bench of this court. Hence the petitioner is at liberty to raise the relevant grounds before the relevant Trial Court.

- Assessee's writ petition dismissed : MADRAS HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-2045-HC-MAD-IT

Kalyanasundaram Suresh Vs DCIT

In writ, the High Court finds that the interests of the Revenue have been sufficiently safeguarded on account of the amounts pre-deposited by the assessee. Hence interim stay on recovery of demand is granted, till the assessee's case is heard and disposed off by the Tribunal.

- Assessee's writ petition disposed of : MADRAS HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-2044-HC-KERALA-IT

B Mohanachandran Nair Vs ACIT

In writ, the High Court directs that the Revenue authorities concerned adjudicate upon the assessment proceedings for the relevant AY in letter and spirit, as per directions issued by the Tribunal. The court also sets a one-month target for completing such exercise and proposes to impose penalty of Rs 25000/- for non compliance with its order.

- Assessees' writ petitions disposed of : KERALA HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-2043-HC-MAD-IT

PR CIT Vs Rakesh Sarin

Whether admission of additional evidences by CIT(A) without providing an opportunity of being heard to the AO while finalising the Block Assessment is legally valid – NO: HC

- Revenue's appeal allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-2042-HC-MAD-IT

Gaurav Syal Vs ITO

Whether it is a fit case for remand where the AO rejects assessee's claim for deduction u/s 54 without assigning any elaborate reasons - YES: HC

- Case remanded: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-2041-HC-KAR-IT

CIT Vs Jupiter Capital Pvt Ltd

On appeal, the High Court modifies the order of the Tribunal and directs the AO to reconsider the relevant issue while also considering the law laid down in the decision of the High Court in M/S. GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD

- Case remanded: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-2040-HC-KAR-IT

CIT Vs Quintiles Research India Pvt Ltd

Whether where as per Rules 18D & Rule 18DA of the I-T Rules, the prescribed authority has granted approval to a research project or to one related to scientific development, it is not open to the AO to question the approval certificate so granted or its validity - YES: HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1515-ITAT-MUM

ITO Vs Bellor Homes And Realtors Pvt Ltd

On appeal, the Tribunal finds there to be no need to keep the appeal pending since the assessee has filed declaration under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. The assessee is nonetheless at liberty to seek restoration of appeal in case an adverse order is passed.

- Revenue's appeal disposed of: MUMBAI ITAT

2020-TIOL-1514-ITAT-MUM

Mukund Ltd Vs DCIT

On appeal, the High Court finds there to be no reason to keep the present appeal alive since the assessee seeks resolution of the matter under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020 and has already filed application thereunder. Hence the appeals are disposed off as withdrawn.

- Assessee's appeal disposed of: MUMBAI ITAT

2020-TIOL-1513-ITAT-DEL

Sudhir Associates Vs CIT

Whether if the notice u/s 143(2) is issued beyond the prescribed statutory limit, reassessment proceedings are invalid - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT

2020-TIOL-1512-ITAT-DEL

Red Fort Shahjahan Properties Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether addition of notional interest is justified under the accrual concept of accounting, having regard to the mandate of the mandatory and binding AS-9 - NO: ITAT

Whether where there is uncertainty regarding realisation of any claim/ receipt including interest, the same is to be recognized only when there is reasonable certainty as regards its ultimate collection - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT

2020-TIOL-1511-ITAT-DEL

ACIT Vs Imperial Housing Ventures Pvt Ltd

Whether once Assessee established before AO that the purchases were genuine and AO has also accepted the same, then addition u/s 69C is not sustainable in such cases - YES: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: DELHI ITAT

2020-TIOL-1510-ITAT-MUM

ACIT Vs Bajaj Holdings & Investment Ltd

Whether expenditure on replacement of Jigs and fixtures is revenue expenditure - YES : ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

2020-TIOL-1509-ITAT-MUM

Laxmichand Dedhia Vs ITO

Whether the brokerage paid becomes an expenditure incurred for the purpose of earning interest income in terms of Section 57(iii) of the Act and is squarely allowable as deduction - YES : ITAT

- Case remanded: MUMBAI ITAT

2020-TIOL-1508-ITAT-MUM

ITO Vs Ramnathan Krishnan

Whether if the tax effect of quantum additions is below threshold monetary limit of Rs.50 Lacs then the appeal is not maintainable in terms of Circular No. 17/2019 issued by CBDT - YES : ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

2020-TIOL-1507-ITAT-KOL

Creative Museum Designers Vs ITO

Whether claim u/s 11 is to be extended to a registered organization u/s 12A, provided the activities of such organization should be in consonance with the objects of Sec 11 - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: KOLKATA ITAT

2020-TIOL-1506-ITAT-BANG

Dr Devika Gunasheela Vs JCIT

Whether if the property came by way of succession, the cost of acquisition of the capital asset would be the cost of the capital asset to the previous owner or the FMV as on 01.04.1981 at the option of the assessee - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: BANGALORE ITAT

2020-TIOL-1505-ITAT-JAIPUR

Pankaj Ladha Vs DCIT

Whether the valuer should give the nature of the coins, their weight and then estimate their value afterwhich the AO consider the figure as against the amount estimated by the valuer with basis - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: JAIPUR ITAT

 
INDIRECT TAX

2020-TIOL-1654-CESTAT-DEL

Khaas Textile Pvt Ltd Vs Addl Director General

Cus - The miscellaneous application is filed by Department under Section 129B (2) of Customs Act, 1962 for rectification error apparent in order 2019-TIOL-2391-CESTAT-DEL - Tribunal do not find any force in argument of revenue and the case laws cited by Respondent in Friends Trading Co. 2008-TIOL-788-HC-P&H-CUS not been considered by Bench which is based on the incorrect appreciation of fact - In the said Final Order of course there is no mention of this case law separately, however, on the finding portion, the Tribunal has relied upon the decision of Friends Trading which cross referred in the decision at paragraph 11 along with other orders - The further decisions in case of Friends Trading at the level of Supreme Court in SLP and Review and also another judgement of Chandigarh High Court is in Friends Trading Company - Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has not considered the decisions of Friends Trading Company - Regarding the doubt mention of involvement of TRA in this case, this does not found to be any relevant point so as to treats that an error apparent on face of record as in the order portion no specific finding about the TRA in the said Final Order - Accordingly, no merit found in the miscellaneous application filed by Revenue and, therefore, the same stand dismissed: CESTAT

- Application dismissed: DELHI CESTAT

2020-TIOL-1653-CESTAT-DEL

Krishna Food Products Vs CCE & ST

CX - The first appellant is a contract manufacturing unit engaged in manufacturing biscuits for its principal M/s Parle Biscuits Private Limited (the second appellant), as per Notfn No 36/2001-C.E. (NT) dated 26.06.2001 for which 1st Appellant had been duly authorised - For manufacturing the biscuits, the second appellant would supply the input, on which the second appellant would avail credit - The second appellant procures and uses common services such as advertisement, market research, sales promotion and marketing - These services are related to the product manufactured by Krishna Food as well as Parle's own manufacturing units - The Second Appellant distributed the input service credit by issuing Input Service Distributor's (ISD) invoice in favour of First Appellant to the extent said input service is attributed to the product manufactured by the First Appellant - The Second Appellant availed CENVAT credit on the strength of ISD invoices - The Revenue alleged that the ISD invoices could be issued by the Second Appellant's office to its manufacturing unit & in which case, the Second Appellant had wrongly issued ISD invoice to te Second Appellant - Hence it was alleged that the First Appellate wrongly availed the CENVAT credit on such ISD invoice of services - On adjudication, the CENVAT credit was denied and penalties were imposed on the appellant - The main ground of the adjudicating authority for confirming the demand is that as per Rule 2(m) read with Rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 only an office of the manufacturer can issue invoice in the capacity of input service distributor to its own manufacturing unit, whereas in the present case, the First Appellant was not the manufacturing unit of the Second Appellant, hence the credit availed by First Appellant on the strength of ISD invoice issued by the Second Appellant is incorrect, consequently credit availed by the First Appellant on such invoice is also wrong - Hence the present appeals

Held - The facts are not under dispute that the contract manufacturing of biscuits by Krishna is on behalf of Parle with the input supplied by Parle to Krishna - The Provision of Notification No. 36/2001-CE (NT) was opted for such contract manufacturing - The input services on which credit was availed is admittedly attributed to the product manufactured on contract basis on prorate basis - In terms of the notification, the Excise duty was paid on the transaction value of Parle, in the present case excise duty was paid on MRP based valuation in terms of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - With this fact undisputed, the substantial requirement for availing Cenvat credit is fulfilled - As per the harmonious reading of entire Cenvat credit Rules, 2004 the whole object of Cenvat credit is that there should not be cascading effect due to double levy on the same cost in a product - In the present case the ownership of the goods manufactured on contract basis, right from raw material stage to final product and sale thereof remains with principal manufacturer i.e. Parle - The Revenue has no objection in availment of Cenvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of biscuits even then the ownership of input too is of Parle - Applying the same analogy Cenvat credit on input service even though received by principal manufacturer but the same is undisputedly related to goods manufactured by Krishna for its marketing, credit should be allowed - For allowing the CENVAT credit in respect of input service, the main criteria is that the said service is duly service tax paid, used in or in relation to manufacture of final product and such final product is cleared on payment of appropriate Excise duty - In the present case these criteria have admittedly been fulfilled - Issuing the ISD invoice is only procedural formalities to keep the accounting of input credit correct and straight: CESTAT

- Case deferred: DELHI CESTAT

2020-TIOL-1652-CESTAT-DEL

Gannon Dunkerley & Company Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - The assessee-company had been issued SCN in the relevant period, mentioning that the assessee had received advance payment for providing Construction service after 09.09.2004, whereas the service became taxable from 10.09.2004 - The assessee was held liable to pay service tax for period upto 05.10.2004 on the amount received as advance payment - As the assessee did not make such payment, the assessee was held liable for short payment of tax - Duty demand was confirmed upon adjudication - CENVAT credit was also disallowed in respect of invoices addresed to allegedly unregistered premises & short payment of service tax - On appeal, the Commr.(A) sustained the demand raised.

Held - The issue that arises for consideration in this Appeal is regarding the scope of Rule 10 of the 1982 Rules which deals with grounds which may be taken in appeal - If the assessee has not taken a ground, he cannot be permitted to urge or be heard in support of the ground not taken unless leave is granted by the Tribunal - The Supreme Court in Jute Corporation examined the powers of Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 251 of the Income Tax Act - After noticing that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, while hearing an appeal against the order of assessment has the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annual the assessment, the Supreme Court noticed that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has further been empowered to remit the case to the Assessing officer for making a fresh assessment - Thus, the Supreme Court observed that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is entrusted with wide powers - It is in this context, that the Supreme Court examined whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to permit raising of additional grounds for assailing the order of the assessment - The Supreme Court observed that there is no reason as to why the appellate authority cannot modify the assessment order on an additional ground not taken before the Income Tax Officer in the absence of any provision in the Act placing restrictions on the powers of the Appellate Authority in entertaining additional grounds - Thus, the general principle relating to plenary powers of the appellate authority, being co-terminus with that of the original authority, should normally be applicable - The Supreme Court also observed that there can be several factors justifying raising of new pleas in appeal and each case had to be considered on its facts - Of course, the power has to be exercised in accordance with law and that the Appellate Authority should be satisfied that the new grounds raised were bonafide and the same could not be raised earlier for good reasons: CESTAT

- Assessee's application allowed: DELHI CESTAT

 
HIGH LIGHTS (SISTER PORTAL )
 

 

 

Download on the App Store
Get it on Google play

 

 


NEWS FLASH
SC tosses out Chanda Kochhar's petition questioning her removal from ICICI MD's post  
TOP NEWS
FPI inflows stood at Rs 62,782 Crore for Nov month

ADB approves USD 430M loan to rehabilitate UP's power distribution

ADB signs USD 132.8M loan to strengthen Meghalaya's power distribution sector

GST collection crosses Rs 1 lakh crore in November

Board of Trade meeting to discuss foreign trade policy, Atmanirbhar Bharat

Terrorism most important challenge faced by the region: India at SCO

KVIC Honey Mission helps UP migrant workers earn

30 lakh paddy farmers benefit from Kharif Marketing Season Procurement Operations

 
GUEST COLUMN

By K Srinivasan

Job Work - Redefined

SECTION 143(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 [Chapter XXI - Miscellaneous - Job Work Procedure] reads -

(3) Where the inputs sent for job work are not received back by the principal after completion of job work or otherwise in accordance with...

 
NOTIFICATION
ctariffadd20_042

Anti-dumping duty on Methylene Chloride extended till Jan, 2021

dgft20pn031

Enlistment as designated port in Para 2.54(d)(iv) of Handbook of Procedure, 2015-2020

 
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