2021-TIOL-126-HC-KAR-IT

Pr.CIT Vs Paresh Exports Pvt Ltd

Whether it is fit case for remand where the Tribunal renders very cryptic findings while disposing off an appeal & which reveal non-application of mind - YES: HC

- Case remanded : KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-125-HC-MAD-IT

Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether payment made for land lease is in nature of rental income and hence liable to have deducted tax at source u/s 194I – NO: HC

- Assessee's appeal allowed : MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-124-HC-MAD-IT

Visalakshi Anandkumar Vs ACIT

Whether assessee's writ appeal against a consequential order refusing to rectify the defects in filing the returns on wrong advice can be sustained if the assessment order which accepts the tax liability as proposed by the assessee is intact – NO: HC

- Assesee's appeal dismissed : MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-123-HC-MAD-IT

CIT Vs AA Antony

Whether an e-appeal can be dismissed merely on the basis of being barred by limitation and without considering the merit of the case - NO: HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed : MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-122-HC-KAR-IT

Pr.CIT Vs Syngene International Ltd

Whether deduction u/s 10B can be granted especially when assessee is not involved in manufacturing activity and is formed by splitting up of existing company - YES : HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed : KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-118-ITAT-PUNE

Vasant Laxman Khandge Vs ITO

Whether income derived from stock-in-trade cannot be termed as 'income from house property' - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed : PUNE ITAT

2021-TIOL-117-ITAT-MUM

ITO Vs Arihant Estate Pvt Ltd

Whether income derived from stock-in-trade cannot be termed as 'income from house property' - YES: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed : MUMBAI ITAT

2021-TIOL-116-ITAT-MUM

Prism Cement Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether disllowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D can be made when AO has not recorded any dissatisfaction regarding the suo-moto disallowance and disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) has already been deleted - NO: ITAT

Whether sales tax exemption received from the state government can be taxed as capital receipts when it was declared with an objective of dispersal of industries outside the State - YES: : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed : MUMBAI ITAT

2021-TIOL-115-ITAT-DEL

Dheeraj Yadav Vs ITO

Whether reopening of assessment can be made merely on the granted that there are several cash depoits and withdrawals in assessee's bank account - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed : DELHI ITAT

2021-TIOL-114-ITAT-MUM

Poonam Ramesh Sahajwani Vs ITO

Whether the term 'agreement' used in proviso to sub-clause (b) of Section 56(2)(vii) does not explicitly refer to a document with the title agreement - YES: ITAT

Whether the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) envisage transfer of ownership for determination of stamp duty value - NO: ITAT

Whether the date of transfer of title in immovable property has any significance under the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

2021-TIOL-113-ITAT-MUM

Mirah Dekor Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether addition of 2% notional commission can be added when AO has already held the sales to be bogus - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

2021-TIOL-112-ITAT-MUM

Bank of India Vs ACIT

Whether PCIT can impose another view on the same subject matter in the revision proceedings u/s.263 - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

2021-TIOL-111-ITAT-MUM

Antony Waste Handling Cell Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether deduction u/s 80IA for works contract for Solid Waste Management System can be granted when the assessee only provides the vehicle to government organizations for the same - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

2021-TIOL-110-ITAT-DEL

Amarjeet Kaur Bawa Vs ITO

Whether re-assessment proceedings can be assailed by assessee by baldly stating to not have received re-assessment notice, without rebutting the Revenue's postage pre-paid which proves proper service of notice at correct address of the assessee - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: DELHI ITAT

2021-TIOL-109-ITAT-DEL

Roop Kishore Madan Vs DCIT

Whether unabsorbed short term brought forward capital loss can be set off against the income arising in current AY - YES: ITAT Whether therefore, no shortfall in payment of taxes on the brought forward losses can be attributed, so as to warrant imposing penalty u/s 271AA on the assessee - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT

2021-TIOL-108-ITAT-JAIPUR

Ashok Kumar Mittal Vs Pr CIT

Whether cash deposits made in assessee's bank account can be added as unexplained income merely because assessee failed to comply with the various notices issued by the AO - NO: ITAT Whether Pr. CIT can excercise power u/s 263 when the appeal on the same subject matter is pending before the CIT(A) - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: JAIPUR ITAT

2021-TIOL-107-ITAT-JAIPUR

S Singhal & Company Vs ACIT

Whether addition of unexplained investment on the basis of bills found during search conducted at third party premises can be made merely because assessee has accepted the bill in his name - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: JAIPUR ITAT

2021-TIOL-128-HC-P&H-GST

Sapna Garg Vs Pr.CCGST

GST - Petition has been filed inter alia seeking a direction to the respondent to supply copies of summons issued on 09/11.11.2020 u/s 70 of the Act, arrest memo with regard to the husband of the petitioner Ankur Garg and panchnama dt. 11.11.2020 drawn during search of the office premises of M/s Ankur Garg & Associates.

Held: Instant petition has been preferred by the wife of the accused, Ankur Garg - Petitioner has not been able to tender any explanation as to why the husband has not come forward for the redressal of his grievance - The petitioner, being spouse of the accused, cannot be said to have any locus standi, while approaching this Court by way of the instant petition - Petition dismissed: High Court

- Petitions dismissed : PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-129-HC-P&H-NDPS

Pushpinder Singh @ Bhindi Vs State Of Punjab

NDPS - Recovery of intoxicating tablets viz. 23,500 tablets of Clovidol-100-SR (Tramadol) and another 17,000 tablets of Clovidol-100-SR (Tramadol) apart from 200 vials 100 ml each of Wincerex - Petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in a case registered against him under Section 22 of NDPS Act, 1985 - Petitioner has vehemently argued that since it is a case registered pursuant to receipt of secret information pertaining to possession of contraband in a vehicle, the same was required to be immediately taken down in writing in terms of Section 42 of the Act and was required to be conveyed to the officer immediately superior to the person who received the secret information and the same not having been done resulted in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the Act and as such, the entire recovery stood vitiated and consequently the petitioner deserves to be released on bail - Counsel for Revenue has opposed the petition while submitting that since intimation by way of a " ruqa " was sent to SHO before ASI Walaiti Ram proceeded to lay barricading and before the car was intercepted, the same would duly satisfy the requirements of Section 42 of the Act pertaining to taking down the information in writing and conveying the same to superior officer; that in any case Section 42 of the Act would not have any application as it is a case of recovery of contraband from a vehicle in transit and which would be covered by Section 43 of the Act and not Section 42; that since it is a case of recovery of "commercial quantity" of contraband wherein the petitioner was caught red-handed, no case for grant of bail is made out.

Held: Material question would be as to whether it is the procedure mandated under Section 42 of the Act which would be applicable or as to whether Section 43 of the Act alone will apply in such cases of recovery from a vehicle in public place - It is held in the cases of State, NCT of Delhi vs. Malvinder Singh = 2007-TIOL-122-SC-NDPS and followed by a Division Bench of P&H High Court in 2012 (2) RCR (Criminal) 600 Davinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab that since the recovery was effected when the vehicle was in transit, hence, Section 43 of the Act is attracted; that since in the present case it is a case of recovery of contraband from a vehicle while in transit, it would be Section 43 of the Act which would be applicable in the matter of procedure and not Section 42 of the Act - Even if it is taken that provisions of Section 42 were to apply, still it is a case where secret information had been duly conveyed to the superior officer i.e. the SHO, by the person receiving secret information namely ASI Walaiti Ram by way of sending a ' ruqa ' stating factum of receipt of secret information, before the vehicle in question was intercepted and before recovery was effected, which would be sufficient compliance of section 42 of the Act - Additionally, the recovered quantity of contraband which falls in the category of 'commercial quantity' would attract fetters imposed by Section 37 of the Act in the matter of grant of bail inasmuch as that a liberal approach in matters of bail in offences under NDPS Act is uncalled for - There is nothing on record at this stage from which it could be inferred that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence in question - The petition is found to be sans merit and is hereby dismissed: High Court [para 11 to 14]

- Petitions dismissed : PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-127-HC-P&H-NDPS

Gurpreet Singh Vs State Of Punjab

NDPS - Recovery of 22,000 tablets of ' Alprasafe ' from the house of Gaggu Singh - Upon chemical examination, the same were found to contain 'alprazolam' which is listed at serial No. 30 in the List of Psychotropic Substances - Petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in a case registered against him under Section 22 of NDPS Act, 1985 - Petitioner has vehemently argued that since it is a case registered pursuant to receipt of secret information pertaining to possession of contraband in a vehicle, the same was required to be immediately taken down in writing in terms of Section 42 of the Act and was required to be conveyed to the officer immediately superior to the person who received the secret information and the same not having been done resulted in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the Act and as such, the entire recovery stood vitiated and consequently the petitioner deserves to be released on bail – Counsel for Revenue has opposed the petition while submitting that since intimation by way of a " ruqa " was sent to SHO before ASI Dalel Singh proceeded for conducting a raid at the house of Jagga Singh, the same would duly satisfy the requirements of Section 42 of the Act pertaining to taking down the information in writing and conveying the same to superior officer; that in view of the judgement of Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana = 2009-TIOL-142-SC-MISC-CB non-compliance of section 42 of the Act, if any, would not ipso-facto vitiate the trial if no prejudice had been caused to the accused; that since it is a case of recovery of 'commercial quantity' of contraband wherein the petitioners were caught red-handed, no case for grant of bail is made out.

Held: A perusal of section 42 of the NDPS Act shows that a secret information pertaining to concealment of a contraband in a building, conveyance or in an enclosed place is required to be taken down in writing and is to be sent within 72 hours to an officer immediately superior to the one who has received such secret information - It is, thus, evident that in the pre-amendment era the law pertaining to communication of secret information was much more stringent than in the post-amendment period ( Sub-section (2) of Section 42 of NDPS Act as replaced by Act 9 of 2001) - Omission to transmit secret information 'immediately' upon its receipt would constitute violation whereas upon amendment, the said requirement was diluted to some extent inasmuch as a period of 72 hours for doing the same has been provided - It was, thus, in view of extraordinary stringent provisions of un-amended Section 42 of the Act, that it was held by Supreme Court (in the case of Darshan Singh 2016 (1) RCR (Criminal) 333 ) that lodging of FIR after effecting recovery and sending reports to senior officers thereafter, would not constitute compliance of Section 42 of the Act - The position in the instant case, as already stated above, is that the information already stood conveyed before the raid was conducted inasmuch as ' ruqa ' which contained the secret information had already been sent to the superior officer i.e. the SHO, Sardulgarh - In such circumstances, insisting upon sending information regarding secret information separately would rather be a pedantic approach particularly when such information has already been conveyed before a raid is conducted - In view of the distinct factual position in the instant case and the fact that there has been a substantial change in the statutory requirement as well, the judgement in Darshan Singh's case (supra) relied upon by the petitioners would not be of much advantage to the petitioners - Petitioners cannot avail of any advantage on the basis of the cited judgement which is clearly distinguishable on facts - Additionally, the recovered quantity of contraband which falls in the category of 'commercial quantity' would attract fetters imposed by section 37 of the Act in the matter of grant of bail - There is nothing on record at this stage from which it could be inferred that the petitioners are not guilty of the offence in question - Both the petitions are found to be sans merit and are hereby dismissed: High Court [para 7, 10, 12]

- Petitions dismissed : PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-44-CESTAT-MAD

Prasad Corporation Ltd Vs CST

ST - The assessee is engaged in data processing services such as Computer Graphics, Digital Restoration and Reverse Telecine and they provide service to domestic as well as foreign customers - While the assessee paid Service Tax on service rendered to domestic customers, they did not pay Service Tax on service rendered to foreign customers under the belief that it amounted to export of services - The Revenue considered the said service rendered by assessee as "Video Tape Production Service" and issued periodical SCNs and confirmed the same - The issue is no longer res integra being decided in assessee's favour in their own case by this very Bench in 2018-TIOL-973-CESTAT-MAD - No stay has been granted by High Court on the appeal filed by department - Nothing survives in the matter as Tribunal do not find any reason not to follow the ratio of the case: CESTAT

-Appeal allowed :CHENNAI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-43-CESTAT-MUM

Crysta LED Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Assessee is in appeal against impugned order confirming for absolute confiscation of goods under Section 111 (d) of Customs Act, 1962 along with penalty under Section 112 (a) by Commissioner (A) for want of BIS certification - The primary ground for rejection of BIS officials test report submitted by assessee before the adjudication authority was that the sample forwarded by dock officer to the concerned group was different from the photographs annexed to the test report as reveals from O-I-O passed, subsequent to the remand order of Commissioner (A), in the first round of litigation - Photographs being secondary piece of evidence which appearances can vary with the angle of photography, it should not form the basis of his decision that the goods are 'LED chains" and not 'LED modules' as opined by BIS Authorities - In such an event also if discrepancy is noticed, Circular no 30/2017-Cus. that permits redrawal of sample even for a second test could have been resorted to and the second Test report could have been accepted - Thus, test was carried out and BIS authorities have submitted their report reconfirming that the imported goods are LED Modules standard IS 16103 and the Port Duty Officer, Mumbai forwarded the same report received through e-mail to the department with a cover note that for such item compulsory BIS registration mark is not required - These two e-mail printouts are accepted as additional evidence as per Rule 23 clause (3) of CESTAT Procedure Rule, 1992 to arriving at a conclusion that the order passed by Commissioner (A) for absolute confiscation of imported goods does not stand the test of law and the same is set aside - The department is directed to treat the imported goods as LED Modules for the purpose of clearance in favour of assessee and complete the process within a month: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT