2021-TIOL-13-ITAT-DEL  

Associated Law Advisors Vs ACIT

2021-TIOL-12-ITAT-MUM  

ACIT Vs National Film Development Corporation Ltd

    2021-TIOL-11-ITAT-MUM  

Nirman Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs ITO

2021-TIOL-10-ITAT-MAD  

Advent Computer Services Ltd Vs ACIT

2021-TIOL-09-ITAT-KOL  

DCIT Vs Birla Corporation Ltd

Whether attaching the amounts due by the Second to Fifth Respondents to the assessee by First Respondent for recovery of tax arrears is not allowed - YES : HC

- Assessee's writ petition partly allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

CX - Interest on delayed refund - Similar issue arose before Tribunal in case of Fujikawa Power & Anr. 2019-TIOL-3661-CESTAT-CHD - Agreeing with the findings of Coordinate Bench in said case, the impugned order is set aside so far interest have been disallowed - The adjudicating authority is directed to grant interest from the date of deposit till the date of grant of refund @12% per annum - Such interest on refund should be granted within a period of sixty days: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

ST - The assessee is a registered contractor and providing Works Contract Service - During audit, it was observed that the assessee was engaged and providing the services, namely, works contract services and the audit objection was raised that the service provided is partly exempted services which is the part of works contract service to be treated as exempt service in view of Rule 2(e) of CCR, 2004 and as such the assessee was required to pay an amount under Rule 6(3)(i) of cenvat credit availed by them - As the issue has already been dealt by Tribunal in case of M/s Surya Contractors Pvt Ltd . 2020-TIOL-899-CESTAT-CHD , Tribunal do not find any merit in the impugned order - Accordingly, provisions of Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004 are not applicable to the facts of the case, consequently no demand is sustainable against assessee - The impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

Cus - Confiscation of foreign currency at the airport - There is no dispute of the fact that both the appellants were taking out foreign currency of USD & UAE Dirhams - The confiscated currencies were attempted to export without the approval of RBI - As per clear provision of Rule 5 of FEMA Regulation, 2000, it is clear that export of foreign currency can be made only by permission of Reserve Bank of India - It is also found that the appellant could not prove authorized source of procuring foreign currency therefore, the foreign currency seized from appellants are liable for confiscation - As regard the issue that though the foreign currency are liable for confiscation but whether the same can be released on payment of fine or the absolute confiscation should remain, it is clear that the discretion is provided for payment of fine in lieu of confiscation - Therefore, it is not mandatory that in all cases the absolute confiscation should be made - The appellants are engaged in business and as per their statement which is undisputed fact that they are running a manufacturing unit for manufacture of PP/HDPE woven bags - They have also stated in their statement that the foreign currency were being taken for the business purpose - The revenue in his submission also confirmed that Rs.19.91 Lacs were shown as Cash in hand in books of Partnership Firm of both the appellants therefore, the source of fund for procuring the foreign currency was available with the appellants - The only lapse on the part of the appellant is that they have not obtained the permission from RBI - The export of foreign currency is allowed subject to permission of RBI - It cannot be said that the appellant had any malafide intention to export the foreign currency as they do not have any gain even if permission is not obtained - Appellant is entitle for release of foreign currencies on payment of fine - Accordingly, as regard the appeal of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Ishwar Parikh, the confiscated foreign currencies has to be released on payment of fine of Rs.2 Lacs - Similarly, the confiscated foreign currency from Mr. Ashish Kumar DahyaBhai Patel has to be released on payment of fine of Rs. 1.0 Lacs - The penalty imposed on both the appellants are very harsh and accordingly, the penalty on Mr. Rajesh Kumar Ishwar Parikh is reduced to Rs.1 Lac. and in respect of Mr. Ashish Kumar Dahyabhai Patel the penalty is reduced to Rs.50,000: CESTAT

- Appeals partly allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT