2021-TIOL-174-HC-KAR-IT

Pr CIT Vs Keradi Milk Producers Women Cooperative Society Ltd

Whether while considering the aspect of delay in filing returns, genuine hardship being faced by assessee is to be taken into account & discretion has to be exercised in genuine cases - YES: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-173-HC-DEL-IT

Coforge Ltd Vs ACIT

On considering all the appeals, the High Court directs that notices be issued to the parties concerned in respect of the issues such as disallowance of deduction u/s 35DD & disallowance u/s 14A.

- Notice issued: DELHI HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-157-ITAT-DEL

Natrajan Monie Vs ITO

Whether reopening of assessment can be done when AO did not make any examination prior to recording reasons for reopening of the assessment - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT

2021-TIOL-156-ITAT-BANG

Sri Tobby Simon Vs DCIT

Whether advance received for the sale of land on the basis of MOU can be treated as short term capital gain merely because a registered sale deed had not been executed - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: BANGALORE ITAT

2021-TIOL-42-SC-ST-LB

CCE & ST Vs Assotech Ltd

ST - The assessee-company is engaged in providing Commercial or Industrial Construction Service, Construction of Residential Complex service, Works Contract Service & Site Formation Service to various clients - During the relevant period, the assessee received a contract from one M/s Arrow Infra Ltd for supplying mud and spreading and dumping of earth on agricultural land - As such activity was not covered under the scope of Site formation and clearance service, excavation, earth moving and demolition service no service tax was paid on the same - Such position was accepted by the Revenue - Subsequent to the completion of the work, M/s Arrow Infra Ltd got the land use changed from agricultural use to construction of residential complex - Thereafter, construction activity was commenced & buildings were constructed - The Revenue opined that since the land was now used for construction activity rather than for agricultural purposes, the services provided by the assessee during the period prior to the conversion of land usage, would be taxable under Site formation and clearance service and excavation, earth moving and demolition services - Hence duty demand was raised and the same was confirmed upon adjudication - On appeal the Tribunal held that definition of site formation and clearance excludes any activity done in relation to agriculture - Inasmuch as the services in the present case were provided in relation to agriculture, the same has to be held as exempted - Subsequent action by the owner of the land has got no relation to the activities done by the appellant prior to the said conversion - The court does not agree with the findings of the adjudicating authority that since the agricultural land was subsequently converted into commercial land, the activity undertaken by the assessee prior to the conversion would become taxable subsequent to conversion of the land - The taxability of the service is required to be examined at the time when the same were provided - Admittedly, such service was provided in respect of agricultural land - Hence there were no grounds to uphold the O-i-O - In respect of limitation, it was held that at the time when the assessee provided the services, the same were exempted and so the assessee's plea of no service tax being payable cannot be doubted - There is no evidence on record to establish that the appellant at the time of providing the services knew that the said land is going to be converted - Hence, invoking extended limitation was not sustainable.

Held - There is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal - Appeal dismissed along with pending applications: SC LB

-Revenue's SLP dismissed :SUPREME COURT OF INDIA