2021-TIOL-198-HC-DEL-IT

Shilpa Chowdhary Vs Pr DIT

Whether HC is empowered to test adequacy of opinion formed by AO u/s 132 of IT Act, 1961– NO: HC

- Assessee's petition dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-197-HC-KAR-IT

Pr CIT Vs Rajkumar C HUF

Whether re-assessment proceedings can be initiated merely because AO has not recorded any independent findings to revoke re-assessment proceedings and the same was initiated on account of directions issued by CIT(A) - YES: HC

- Revenue's appeal allowed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-196-HC-KAR-IT

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether expenses for research and development are capital in nature – NO: HC Whether to make disallowance u/s 14A AO must record satisfaction concerning non genuineness of assessee's claim - YES: HC

- Assessee's appeal allowed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-195-HC-MAD-IT

Pr CIT Vs Envestor Ventures Ltd

Whether disallowance u/s 14A can be made when no expenditure is made to earn that exempt income - NO: HC

- Revenue's appeal is dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-180-ITAT-DEL

Aradhana Foods And Juices Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether disallowance of purchase of unverified fixed assets can be made when books of accounts and bills/vouchers were not produced before either the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A) - NO: ITAT Whether ad-hoc disallowance of ten percent of the total operating expenditure can be made merely on the basis of previous year decision even when there is change in facts in the present year - NO: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT

2021-TIOL-179-ITAT-DEL

Bhageria Finance And Investment Pvt Ltd Vs ITO

Whether addition u/s 68 & 69 can be made on the basis of second reopening of assessment which was made on the basis of same documentary evidences which have already been considered and accepted by the AO - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT

2021-TIOL-178-ITAT-MUM

ITO Vs Paresh S Sanghvi HUF

Whether disallowance made on account of bogus purchases cannot be made when assessee has failed to prove that the purchases were genuine in nature - YES: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

2021-TIOL-177-ITAT-MUM

PCK Metals Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether addition on acount of bogus purchases u/s 69 can be made merely because assessee has failed to produce the parties from whom alleged purchases were made - YES: ITAT Whether disallowance on interest under section 36(1) (iii) can be made when it cannot be proved that the advances made to sister concern were in respect of business transactions - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

2021-TIOL-176-ITAT-MUM

Tata Motors Ltd Vs Addl.CIT

Whether disallowance u/s 14A can be made when estimated time allocated by the assessee for workings for disallowance of expenses u/s.14A is purely made on adhoc basis - NO: ITAT Whether claim of depreciation of revised written Down Value of the assets acquired by the assessee from its holding company can be made because there is change in shareholding pattern - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

2021-TIOL-175-ITAT-KOL

Trincas Vinimay Pvt Ltd Vs ITO

Whether addition on account of capital gain u/s 50D for transfer of right to purchase can be made made when the only document evidencing the transfer in the form of self-made affidavit did not indicate any consideration for the transfer - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: KOLKATA ITAT

2021-TIOL-60-CESTAT-MAD

Tamil Nadu State Apex Cooperative Bank Vs CGST & CE

ST - The issue arises for consideration is, whether the assessee is eligible to avail Cenvat Credit of Service Tax paid by them for the services provided by Insurance Corporation for insuring the deposits of public with the banks - This very same issue was referred to Larger Bench and vide order 2020-TIOL-861-CESTAT-BANG-LB in case of M/s. South Indian Bank, the Larger Bench of Tribunal had held that credit is eligible on the service tax paid on such premiums - The very same issue has again been referred to President to resolve the issue by constituting a Larger Bench - The reason for such reference and doubting of the order rendered by Larger Bench is that the decision rendered by Apex Court in Dilip Kumar & Co. 2018-TIOL-302-SC-CUS-CB was not considered by Larger Bench and therefore the Larger Bench decision is per incuriam - When the issue has been decided by Larger Bench, judicial discipline binds to follow the same - Further, the judgement in Dilip Kumar & Co. is with regard to interpretation of exemption notifications and would not be relevant for application to the issue under consideration which is the eligibility of Cenvat Credit - Application of judicial discipline is necessary to give uniformity and certainty in decisions - Following the same, impugned order cannot sustain and same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-59-CESTAT-MAD

CGST & CE Vs Eveready Industries India Ltd

CX - The assessee is engaged in manufacture of Dry Cell Batteries and they were using wooden crates for packing their consignment of finished goods - Since the assessee had paid duty including cost of wooden packings, they filed application for refund of excise duty paid in respect of such packings along with interest - Subsequently, O-I-O was passed sanctioning Rs.29,41,926/- as refund - An amount of Rs.45,95,344/- was adjusted and appropriated towards the credit availed by them on inputs used in manufacture of secondary packing material by observing that such credit is ineligible to assessee - Further, the original authority demanded interest on ineligible credit for period 30.09.1996 to 02.08.1997 - On appeal, the Commissioner (A) upheld the sanction of refund of Rs.29,41,926/- and appropriation of Rs.45,95,344/- - The demand of interest on the ineligible credit under Section 11AB was set aside - The Commissioner (A) also held that the assessee is eligible for interest under Section 11BB of CEA, 1944 from three months from the date of filing of refund claim till the refund is paid to the assessee - The main argument of department is that the assessee has to pay interest on ineligible modvat credit - In the case of erroneous refund, the department could have issued a SCN proposing to recover the amount erroneously refunded to the assessee - In a litigation arising out of a refund claim filed by assessee, the department cannot claim any relief - The demand of interest on the ineligible modvat credit cannot therefore sustain - Since the amount has been appropriated at the time of order of refund itself, as correctly pointed out by assessee there is no liability to pay interest - The finding rendered by Commissioner (A) is legal and proper - The date of filing refund claim is on 05.11.2007 - The argument of department that there was delay on the part of the assessee to furnish details with regard to modvat credit and therefore the delay has occurred due to the negligence on the part of assessee is not tenable - If there was undue delay on the part of assessee, the department could have rejected the refund claim for this reason - The assessee is eligible for interest under Section 11BB and therefore no error found in the order passed by Commissioner (A) with regard to this issue also - Appeal filed by department is without merits: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-58-CESTAT-MAD

Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd Vs CC

Cus - The assessee is engaged in manufacture of iron and steel products - During the year 2016, they imported certain capital goods - They also imported consignment with regard to design and drawings through Chennai Airport - There was an issue with regard to classification of goods and the assessing officer assessed the goods to be classified under CTH 98010019 provisionally - The assessee lodged a protest against this provisional assessment and also paid duty - However, no speaking order was issued - Rejection of appeal by Commissioner (A) holding that it is an appeal against provisional assessment is against the settled positions of law - Matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for finalising the assessment as expeditiously as possible: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: CHENNAI CESTAT