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

2020-TIOL-NEWS-306| December 30, 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-2267-HC-MUM-IT

Lanxess India Pvt Ltd Vs Addl CIT

On appeal, the High Court acknowledges the assessee's request to seek settlement of the matter under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. Hence it finds no reason to keep the present appeal pending. Hence the Court permits withdrawal of the present appeal.

- Assessee's appeal disposed of : BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-2266-HC-ALL-IT

Kusum Lata Vs DCIT

On considering the petition, the High Court directs that the matter be listed for hearing on 18.01.2021. It also permits two weeks' time to the Department for filing counter affidavit.

-  Case deferred : ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-2263-HC-DEL-IT

Swift Securitas Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

In writ, the High Court directs the Revenue to adjust the amount payable to the assessee against the outstanding demand u/s 154, for the relevant AY.

- Writ petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-2262-HC-MAD-IT

Pr.CIT Vs SNJ Distillers Pvt Ltd

On appeal, the High Court finds that the issues raised by the Revenue have been decided in favor of the assessee, vide the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Hence the Court disposes off the present appeal accordingly.

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-2261-HC-MAD-IT

Sword Global India Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT

In writ appeal, the High Court acknowledges the assessee's submissions about taking appropriate remedy against the re-assessment order, if any, passed by the AO. Hence it observes that the present appeal is rendered infructuous.

- Writ appeal dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-2260-HC-MUM-IT

New Lakshmi Jewellers Vs Pr.CIT

Whether gold seized for non production of valid documents from the job worker which formed part of his unaccounted income can be released merely because it actually belong to the assessee - NO: HC

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-2259-HC-MUM-IT

Travotel India Pvt Ltd Vs ITO

On appeal, the High Court finds there to be no reason to keep the present appeal pending, as the assessee sought resolution of the same under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. Hence it permits withdrawal of appeal.

- Assessee's appeal disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-2258-HC-KAR-IT

Pr.CIT Vs Syngene International Ltd

On appeal, the High Court finds that the issues raised by the Revenue have been settled against it vide orders passed by this Court in I.T.A.No.184/2016. Hence the present appeal is disposed off accordingly.

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1710-ITAT-MUM

ITO Vs Gautam B Bafna

Whether entire quantum of bogus purchases made from the grey market, merits being disallowed, when the sales corresponding to such purchases are not doubted - NO: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

2020-TIOL-1709-ITAT-MUM

DCIT Vs Ashwin S Mehta

Whether interest u/s 220(2) is chargeable from the date of default of fresh demand notice issued after the fresh assessment made consequent to the orders of the appellate authorities - YES: ITAT

- Appeal stands dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

2020-TIOL-1708-ITAT-DEL

Adonis Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs ITO

Whether it is a fit case for remand where the AO submits additional evidence for consideration, in respect of additions framed on account of unexplained cash credits - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: DELHI ITAT

2020-TIOL-1707-ITAT-PUNE

ACIT Vs Inox Air Products Pvt Ltd

Whether if the object of subsidy is to accelerate industrial development in concerned States, it can be treated as capital in nature - YES : ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: PUNE ITAT

2020-TIOL-1706-ITAT-BANG

Mag India Industrial Automation Systems Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.CIT

Whether power of revision u/s 263 is rightly exercised where the AO omits to examine the merits of the assessee's claim for provision of warranty expenses & does not conduct any enquiry on such issue - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: BANGALORE ITAT

2020-TIOL-1705-ITAT-MUM

IDFC Projects Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether write off of an expenditure on an abandoned project can be allowed as has inextricable link with the assessee's business - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

2020-TIOL-1704-ITAT-JAIPUR

CIT Vs Ashok Agarwal HUF

Whether the difference in the DLC value and sales consideration can be brought to tax u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) if the land so acquired doesn't fall within the definition of capital asset – NO: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: JAIPUR ITAT

 
GST CASES

2020-TIOL-2265-HC-DEL-GST

Raghav Agarwal Vs CCT & GST

GST - Applicant was arrested by an Arrest Memo dated 18.11.2020 - Respondent had issued a letter dated 11.06.2020 alleging that M/s Dreamz International had availed of fraudulent/inadmissible ITC amounting to Rs.2,60,44,887/- and the applicant was requested to deposit the said amount in DRC-03 challans and submit the same via e-mail - Counsel appearing for the respondent states that the said figure has now swelled to Rs.10,84,00,000/- - It is also conceded that no show cause notice has been issued to the applicant as yet and no proceedings for assessing the exact amount has been initiated.

Held: Matter is listed for hearing on 19.01.2021 - In the meanwhile, the applicant is directed to be released on interim bail on his furnishing a Personal Bond in the sum of Rs.1 lakh with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court/duty magistrate and subject to further conditions as detailed: High Court

- Interim bail granted : DELHI HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-304-AAR-GST

Alfa Granites

GST - Applicant had sought a ruling from the Authority and had also attended the hearing scheduled on 15.10.2020 - However, vide their letter dated 23.11.2020 they requested the Authority to permit them to withdraw their application for advance ruling quoting the reason that certain clauses of the MOU have been amended due to the ill-effect of COVID-19 and consequential slowdown of business.

Held: Application filed is disposed of as withdrawn: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2020-TIOL-303-AAR-GST

Dheeraj Enterprises

GST - Applicant seeks correct classification of licensing services for the right to broadcast and show original films, sound recordings, Radio & Television programmes etc. - Application filed on 22.09.2020.

Held: It is clearly evident from the records that the issue of classification of the services provided by the applicant was under investigation as evident from DRC-01A dated 10.09.2020 - Said form GST DRC-01A is a prescribed one in terms of rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and contains a reference of the case proceedings which clearly indicates that proceedings have been initiated and are not concluded and which proves that the case proceedings are pending - Issue raised in the instant application and the issue pending under the proceedings are one and the same i.e. classification of the services provided by the applicant - Thus the first proviso to s.98(2) of the Act, 2017 is squarely applicable to the instant case as all the conditions therein are fulfilled - Application is, therefore, rejected as ‘inadmissible' in terms of first proviso to s.98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017: AAR

- Application rejected: AAR

2020-TIOL-302-AAR-GST

Dempo Diary Industries Ltd

GST - Applicant has sought an advance ruling in respect of the classification of the product ‘Flavoured Milk; whether under HSN 0402 9990 or under 2202 9930 - It is an undisputed fact that the applicant supplies the impugned product under the brand name 'Nandini' which is owned by M/s KMF against who an offence case is pending before DGGI, Bangalore - Applicant has admitted that M/s KMF holds 90% shares and hence have management/administrative control over the applicant - M/s KMF are the owners of 'Nandini' brand against whom an offence case is pending before DGGI, Bengaluru on classification of flavoured milk - Thus it is very clear that the applicant, being the job worker to M/s KMF becomes part of M/s KMF as they also supply the same product of ‘Flavoured Milk' and hence is bound to oblige the conclusion of the proceedings in this regard - Hence, the pendency of proceedings automatically applies to the present applicant also - Instant application is liable for rejection in terms of first proviso to s.98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017: AAR

- Application rejected: AAR

2020-TIOL-301-AAR-GST

Bengaluru Co-Operative Milk Union Ltd

GST - Applicant has sought an advance ruling in respect of the classification of the product ‘Flavoured Milk; and the rate of GST thereon - It is an undisputed fact that the applicant supplies the impugned product under the brand name 'Nandini' which is owned by M/s KMF against who an offence case is pending before DGGI, Bangalore - Applicant has admitted that they are one of the shareholders of M/s KMF, who are the owners of Nandini brand and against whom an offence case is pending before DGGI, Bengaluru on classification of flavoured milk - Applicant being the shareholder in M/s KMF becomes part of M/s KMF as they also supply the product ‘flavoured milk' under the 'Nandini' brand and hence is bound to oblige the conclusion of the proceedings in this regard - Hence, the pendency of proceedings automatically applies to the present applicant also - Instant application is liable for rejection in terms of first proviso to s.98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017: AAR

- Application rejected: AAR

2020-TIOL-300-AAR-GST

Age Industries Ltd (Dated: December 15, 2020)

GST - A pplicant is engaged in manufacture, distribution and marketing of Knitted and Woven Garments under the brand name of "Jockey", Swim-wears and Swimming Equipment's under the brand name of "SPEEDO" - The applicant also gets the said garments manufactured from their job workers - Applicant had sought advance ruling on the following - "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the promotional products / Materials and Marketing Items used by the Applicant in promoting their brand and marketing their products can be considered as "inputs" as defined under section 2(59) of the CGST Act, 2017 and GST paid on the same can be availed as input tax credit in terms of section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017?"

Held:

+ What is the treatment to be given to those materials which are delivered to the distributors, franchisees and retailers but the ownership lies with the applicant, but the same are used in their premises ("non-distributable goods") & those which are delivered free of cost to the distributors, franchisees and retailers to be distributed to their employees and customers ("distributable goods");

+ Applicant uses these goods till the goods are usable for the promotion of his business and claim the depreciation on the same. The applicant is capitalizing these goods and on the day of their disposal, the said goods are destroyed.

+ Since the applicant is retaining the ownership on these materials and are not a direct cost of the products sold, they can be treated as "capital goods" and hence needs to be capitalized in his books of accounts. Hence they cannot be treated as "input" as the term excludes capital goods.

+ Taxes paid by the applicant on the supply of goods or services, or both, qualify as input tax credit.

+ Since the applicant has used or intended to use the goods and services procured in the course or furtherance of business, the applicant is entitled to take input tax credit, subject to other provisions of the Act and there is no blockage attributable to section 17(1) as the applicant has used the goods in the course or furtherance of business.

+ The "non-distributable" goods are used by the applicant for the purpose of their business and at the time of such writing off or loss or destruction, the input tax credit claimed on such goods are to be reversed. The applicant has not made any submissions regarding what is ultimately done to these goods after the end of period of usage. Assuming that they are written off or destroyed or lost, the input tax credit claimed under section 16 needs to be reversed as per Rule 43 of the CGST Rules, 2017.

+ Regarding the "distributable goods", they are procured by the applicant and used for sales promotion. They are given free of cost and there is no consideration for such transfer. The stock register of the applicant would be credited with these materials when they are procured and debited when they are distributed and hence they would be no longer in the accounts of the applicant. Since this transfer is not for consideration, the next step is to examine if the transaction is falling under the First Schedule of CGST Act, 2017.

+ With regard to the first category i.e. the Franchisees of the applicant are associated in the business of one another and hence are related persons. It is an admitted fact that the applicant disposes the distributable goods by way of gifts and free supplies to promote business and hence are to be treated as supplies in terms of para 2 of Schedule I to the CGST Act 2017. Thus the applicant need to discharge applicable GST on such supplies and thereby is entitled to avail input tax credit on the said supply of goods.

+ The second category is that of all brands stores and they do not fall under the related persons. Further, the Circular No. 92/11/2019-GST dated 07.03.2019 also addresses applicant's contention that items supplied for promotion of the brand is as per contractual obligation & hence can't be called as gifts. The Circular makes it abundantly clear that these items would be called "gifts". Hence in this case, since the persons to whom the "distributable goods" are given are not related parties and are distinct persons and are not employees of the applicant, the transaction is not coming under the scope of "supply" and hence the applicant is not eligible to claim input tax credit on the same.

Conclusion:

1. The ITC of GST paid on the procurement of the "distributable" products which are distributed to the distributors, franchisees is allowed as the said distribution amounts to "supply" to the related parties which is exigible to GST - Further, the said distribution to the retailers for their use cannot be claimed as gifts to the retailers or to their customers free of cost and hence ITC of GST paid on such procurement is not allowed as per Section 17 (5) of the GST Acts.

2. The GST paid on the procurement of "non-distributable" products qualify as "capital goods" and not as "inputs" and the applicant is eligible to claim input tax credit on their procurement, but in case they are disposed by writing off or destruction or lost, then the same needs to be reversed under Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 43 of the CGST Rules, 2017.

- Application disposed of: AAR

2020-TIOL-89-NAA-GST

Director General Of Anti-Profiteering Vs Lifestyle International Pvt Ltd

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Authority vide order no. 08/2018 [ 2018-TIOL-7-NAA-GST ] had held that  the Respondent had enhanced the basic price of the product  "Maybelline FIT Me foundation”,  which was exactly equal to the amount by which the GST on them had been reduced [ from 28% to 18% vide Notification  No. 41/2017 -Central Tax (Rate)  dated 14.11.2017, with effect from 15.11.2017 ] and  hence there is no doubt that the Respondent had resorted to profiteering amounting to Rs. 15,861/- (in total) which includes profiteering of Rs. 41/- made by him from the Applicant, which constitutes violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the above Act - Accordingly, the Authority had issued notice dated 01.10.2018 to the Respondent to Show cause as to why they were not liable for imposition of penalty under the provisions of s.122 of the Act, 2017 read with Rule 133(3)(d) of the Rules, 2017 - Respondent vide his submissions dt. 24.10.2018 and 19.12.2018 stated that the penalty provisions u/s 122 r/w rule 133(3)(d) should not be invoked and penalty should not be imposed as he had cooperated fully with the DGAP and always acted in a bonafide manner and passed on the benefit of reduced GST; that penalty can be imposed only when there was mens  rea and deliberate attempt to violate the provisions of law.

Held: It is revealed that no penalty had been prescribed for violation of the provisions of s.171(1) of the Act and, therefore, the respondent was issued a SCN to state why penalty should not be imposed on him for violation of the above provisions as per s.122(1)(i) of the Act as he had apparently issued incorrect or false invoices while charging excess consideration and GST from the buyers - However, from the perusal of s.122(1)(i) of the Act it is clear that the violation of provisions of s.171(1) was not covered under it as it does not provide penalty for not passing on the benefit of rate reduction and hence the above penalty cannot be imposed for violation of the anti-profiteering provisions made under s.171 of the Act - It is further revealed that vide s.112 of the Finance Act, 2019, specific penalty provisions have been added for violation of the provisions of s.171(1) which have come into force w.e.f 01.01.2020 by inserting s.171(3A) of the Act - Since no penalty provisions were in existence between the period 15.11.2017 to 31.01.2018 when the respondent had violated the provisions of s.171(1) of the Act, the penalty prescribed under sec.171(3A) cannot be imposed on the respondent retrospectively - Accordingly, the notice dated 01.10.2018 issued to the respondent for imposition of penalty u/s 122(1)(i) is hereby withdrawn and present penalty proceedings are dropped: NAA

- Proceedings dropped: NAA

2020-TIOL-73-NAA-GST

Director-General Of Anti-Profiteering Vs Sudharshan

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Applicant alleges profiteering by the respondent in respect of the supply of Services by way of admission to exhibition of cinematograph films where price of admission ticket is one hundred rupees or less when GST was reduced from 18% to 12% w.e.f 01.01.2019 vide notification 27/2018-CTR - DGAP has reported that the respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate on the aforesaid movie admission tickets and instead increased the base prices to maintain the same cum-tax selling prices - DGAP has in its report stated that the amount of alleged profiteering covering the period from 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019 was Rs.2,23,850/- and the recipient of the services were not identifiable as no such details of the customers had been provided.

Held:  Respondent has neither submitted the order showing fixation of prices by the State government nor has he submitted any documentary evidence/agreement to evidence that the price was fixed by the film producers/distributors and hence their contention that he has no right to fix the prices of the tickets cannot be accepted - Authority agrees with the report of the DGAP that the respondent has realised an additional amount to the tune of Rs.2,23,850/- from the recipients which included both the profiteered amount and the GST on the said profiteered amount - The respondent is, therefore, directed to reduce the prices of his tickets as per the provisions of rule 133(3)(a) of the Rules, 2017 keeping in view the reduction in the rate of tax so that the benefit is passed on to the recipients - Respondent is also directed to deposit the profiteered amount of Rs.2,23,850/- along with interest to be calculated @18% from the date when the above amount was collected by him from the recipients till the said amount is deposited - As the recipients are not identifiable, the respondent is directed to deposit the amount equally between the Central Consumer Welfare Fund and the State Consumer Welfare Fund as per rule 133(3)(c) of the Rules, 2017 along with interest @18% - Above amount is to be deposited within a period of three months and compliance reported - DGAP to submit compliance report - In view of the pandemic and the notification 65/2020-CT issued in this regard, order is passed accordingly: NAA

- Application disposed of: NAA

2020-TIOL-71-AAAR-GST

Tirumala Milk Products Pvt Ltd

GST -  AAR had held that the f irst proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 does not specify as to with whom the issue pertaining to the question raised (before the AAR) has to be pending, but merely specifies that it has to be pending or decided under the provisions of this Act; that, therefore, the argument of the applicant that the issue must be pending before the jurisdictional officer is not tenable under the law; that in the instant case, the Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore East Commissionerate, Bangalore has reported vide letter dated 18.08.2020 that the Directorate of GST Intelligence, Bangalore Zonal Unit has initiated the investigation against the applicant, with regard to mis-classification of "flavoured milk", under Incident Report No.35/2019-20, which is under progress; that it is an admitted fact that the initiation of investigation was done prior to filing of the instant application by issuing summons dated 18.02.2019, 15.03.2019 & 14.08.2019 and hence the application is liable to be treated as inadmissible - AAR had, therefore, rejected the application as "inadmissible" in terms of first proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act 2017 - Aggrieved, the appellant is before the AAAR - Appellant contends that mere issuance of summons to them cannot be called as 'proceedings under the Act'; that it is only when a SCN has been issued can it be said that proceedings are pending; that even assuming for the sake of argument that the proviso is applicable, there is nothing to prove that the question raised in the application [whether flavoured milk is taxable @5% under Schedule IV of the Act] was the subject matter being investigated; that none of the three summons issued had any mention that the classification of Flavoured milk or its rate of tax was being investigated by the authorities.

Held: As per section 95(a) of the Act, "Advance ruling" means a decision provided by the Authority or the Appellate Authority to an applicant on matters or questions specified in sub-section (2) of section 97 of sub-section (1) of s.100 in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant - An advance ruling pronounced by the Authority u/s 98(4) may be appealed against to the Appellate Authority within a period of 30 days/further period not exceeding thirty days - A reading of the above provisions makes it clear that an appeal can be filed before the Appellate authority ONLY against an  advance ruling pronounced in terms of s.98(4) of the act - In this case, there is no ruling given by the lower Authority on the question raised in the application - Such an order rejecting the application for advance ruling as 'inadmissible' is not an order appealable before the Appellate Authority - Appellate Authority, therefore, agrees with the decision taken by the lower Authority that the application for advance ruling is inadmissible in terms of the proviso to s.98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Appeal filed is, therefore, not maintainable inasmuch as the impugned order is not an appealable order u/s 100 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Since the appeal itself is not maintainable, the question of condoning the delay in filing the appeal does not arise - Appeal dismissed as not maintainable: AAAR

-Appeal dismissed : APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING

 
INDIRECT TAX

2020-TIOL-1719-CESTAT-MUM

Arval India Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST & CE

ST - The tax liability confirmed in impugned order were demanded in statements issued, under section 73(1A) of FA, 1994, by reference to facts, and evidence, elaborated in first SCN for the period from 1st April 2008 to 30th September 2012 which straddles the service enumerated in section 65(105)(o) of FA, 1994 and the successor 'negative list' regime - The disputed tax pertains to leviability in 'negative list' regime as provider of service relating to lease of motor vehicles and on the entire consideration received as rentals from customers - The issue is no longer res integra in view of decision in assessee's own appeal against the demand for earlier period - The fitment for taxability under Finance Act, 1994, ignoring the scheme of distribution of exclusive tax jurisdictions in the lists of the Seventh Schedule of Constitution, within the definitions therein was considered by Tribunal in re Arval India Pvt Ltd 2020-TIOL-1316-CESTAT-MUM that decided the appeal against the demands for earlier periods - Accordingly, the impugned order isset aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2020-TIOL-1718-CESTAT-CHD

Kenzo International Vs CCE

CX - The Revenue has filed application for rectification of mistake in the final order passed by Tribunal on 26.11.2019 - Tribunal do not find any mistake apparent on record - The Revenue wants to challenge the merits of order by way of rectification of mistake - The said act of Revenue is not appreciable as the same shall amounts to review of own order which is not permissible in law - Further, the issue whether the application of rectification of mistake is maintainable or not has been discussed by Tribunal in case of J K Card Board Industries - Therefore, no merit found in the applications, accordingly, the same are dismissed: CESTAT

- ROM applications dismissed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2020-TIOL-1717-CESTAT-ALL

Shri Ji Jewellers Vs CC

Cus - Seizure of gold - The gold in question stand seized and confiscated by Revenue on the ground that the same was of foreign origin and was smuggled into country - On being questioned, Revenue fairly agreed that there are no marking of foreign origin found on the gold bars - The entire case of Revenue is based upon initial statement of Shri Karan Soni which was also retracted by him on the next day itself, when he was produced before Judicial Magistrate - It is well settled law that for upholding the charge of smuggling, goods have to be first established to be of foreign origin - It is seen that the seized gold was covered by invoice issued by Shri Lokesh Kumar Choudhary, proprietor of Shri Ji Jewellers - As per Shri Karan Soni, the said invoice was produced before GRP Police Officer but was torn by them - The said invoice was subsequently recovered by Customs Officers from mobile carried by Shri Karan Soni - The Revenue has nowhere alleged that the said invoice is a fake invoice, infact, Shri Ji Jewellers who were registered under GST, also charged GST on the invoice and deposited the same with Revenue - These facts are not disputed by Department - If that be so, Tribunal fail to understand as to how the gold in question can be said to be a gold of foreign origin and smuggled, which was being brought by Shri Karan Soni from Kolkata - The said invoice clearly establishes beyond doubt that the gold was sent by Shri Lokesh Kumar Choudhary from Ajmer to Kolkata for further delivery, but the same could not be delivered as the owner of shop was not available and Shri Karan Soni was advised to bring back the same to Ajmer - The production of invoice which was infact, found in mobile phone of Shri Karan Soni itself, leads credence to appellants' stand that the gold is part of stock of Shri Ji Jewellers and was sent by Shri Lokesh Kumar Choudhary for sale of the same duly covered by invoice in question - It is also surprising that even though the Revenue is believing and relying upon the initial statement of Shri Karan Soni, detailing the name and address of the persons at Kolkata from whom the gold in question was received by him, they have not bothered to make any investigation at their end - There is no explanation coming from Revenue for said lapse on their part - Such non-action on the part of Revenue, creates doubt against them and compels one to conclude that such an effort might have been done by Revenue and found to be untrue, thus making the statement unworthy of reliance - The impugned order is set aide: CESTAT

- Appellant's appeals allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

 
HIGH LIGHTS (SISTER PORTAL )
 

 

 

Download on the App Store
Get it on Google play

 

 


NEWS FLASH

Chinese firm Sinopharm claims 79% efficacy for Corona vaccine

India suspends all flights to UK till Jan 7, 2021

UK Regulator approves AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine; India to follow suit soon

CBDT issues refunds of over Rs 1.56 lakh Crore between April 1 to Dec 27, 2020

US finally detects first case of UK highly transmissible variant of coronavirus in Colorado

President Kovind to confer Digital India Awards for innovation in eGovernance today

Copyright battle - Florida court tosses out Apple's claims against security start-up Corellium

COVID-19 Vaccine - WHO's GAVI nominates Dr Harsh Vardhan to Board

World famous designer Pierre Cardin, 98, passes away

 
TOP NEWS
Govt extends due dates for GSTR-9 for FY 2019-20; ITRs, tax audit reports & declaration under VsV Scheme

Cabinet approves Multi Modal Logistics Hub & Multi Modal Transport Hub at Greater Noida

Cabinet approves modified scheme to enhance ethanol distillation capacity

Cabinet okays three Indian Missions in Estonia, Paraguay & Dominican Republic

14 fresh cases of 'more infectious' UK COVID-19 strain reported in India

President Kovind to confer Digital India Awards 2020 today

Harsh Vardhan releases Action Agenda for an Aatmanirbhar Bharat report

 
JEST GST

By Vijay Kumar

Jest Myths, facts, misconception, reality, frauds arrest and bail

ON 22.12.2020, the CBIC by Notification No. 94/2020 - Central Tax brought into force the Central Goods and Services Tax (Fourteenth Amendment) Rules, 2020 . The new rules were received with shock, surprise, anguish and agitation ...

 
GUEST COLUMN

By Dr G Gokul Kishore

GST - An agenda for reforms - Part - 93 - The seamless credit story of GST

WORLD-over, GST is the value added tax, to the maximum extent possible. This latter caveat is to provide for human failings, economic peculiarities of nations and federal or quasi-federal political pressures between the federal and sub-federal governments. India started introducing...

 
DEPUTATION POSTS

F.No. 152A/001/2020-CMD-III/6597

Circular for inviting nominations of officers from Group A services for the posts under Central Staffing Scheme and for the posts of Chief Vigilance Officers for the year 2021, on deputation basis

 
ORDER
Order No 161

CBIC promotes 201 officers to grade of DC

Order No 160

CBIC promotes 107 officers JCs

 
NOTIFICATION

cnt114_2020

CBIC notifies fresh exchange rates for Turkish Lira

 
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