2021-TIOL-218-ITAT-MUM

Abhijavala Developers Pvt Ltd Vs ITO

Whether addition of unsecured loan can be made when the assessee has discharged his primary onus of proving the identity of the creditors - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

2021-TIOL-217-ITAT-MUM

Empower India Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether computation of commission income should be restricted to quantum of investments & sales made to unrelated parties - YES: ITAT

- Case remanded: MUMBAI ITAT

2021-TIOL-216-ITAT-AHM

Ashirwad Developers Vs DCIT

Whether disallowances for job-work/labour work expenses can be deleted even when assessee could not produce the party for verification of genuineness of expenses - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD ITAT

2021-TIOL-215-ITAT-DEL

Spooner Industries Pvt Ltd Vs ITO

Whether an assessment selected for limited scrutiny and later on converted to full scrutiny can be held to be invalid when the assessment order is passed next day of the approval for the conversion - YES: ITAT Whether additions on account of security premium received on fresh issue of shares can be made when there is no error in valuation of shares which is done by adopting discounted free cash flow method - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: DELHI ITAT

2021-TIOL-214-ITAT-PUNE

Sarthi Youth Foundation Vs CIT

Whether grant of registration and the assessment of income the trust are two different distinct procedure prescribed under the Act - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: PUNE ITAT

2021-TIOL-213-ITAT-KOL

Bansabati Cooperative Bank Ltd Vs Pr.CIT

Whether PCIT can invoke his powers u/s 263 when the view taken by the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be erroneous - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: KOLKATA ITAT

2021-TIOL-249-HC-AHM-GST

Surya Roadways Vs SIO

GST - Short point for the consideration is whether the two trucks could have been seized under Section 129 of the Act, 2017, more particularly when both the trucks were not in transit carrying any goods - Indisputably, both the trucks were seized from the office premises of the writ applicant - The department has doubts with regard to some past transactions - Petitioner prays for a direction quashing and setting aside the impugned orders of seizure. Held: For the purpose of inquiry or investigation, the two trucks may not be kept in the custody of the department - In such circumstances, Bench directs the respondent to release both the trucks on the writ applicant furnishing an undertaking in writing on oath before the authority concerned that till the conclusion of the inquiry or investigation, he shall not transfer the two trucks in favour of any other person or shall not part with the possession of the same or create any encumbrance upon the same - It shall be open for the writ applicant to use the two trucks in his normal course of business - In the event if the department deems fit to issue MOV-10 under Section 130 of the Act, 2017, then at least the goods should be secured for that purpose - Bench disposes of this writ application with the aforesaid directions - Bench expects the writ applicant to cooperate in the investigation pursuant to the summons issued under Section 70 of the Act: High Court [para 5, 7]

- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-248-HC-AHM-GST

Surat Mercantile Association Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner challenges the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the GST Act, 2017 on the ground of being manifestly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A respectively of the Constitution; that the taxpayers cannot be made to suffer by not allowing the ITC on account of the failure on the part of the respondents to notify the Forms GSTR-2 and GSTR-3 respectively. Held: Notice be issued to the respondents, returnable on 25th March 2021: High Court [para 5] - Notice issued: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-244-HC-DEL-GST

Mahavir Transmission Ltd Vs DGGI

GST - Allegations of fraudulent availing of and passing on of ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) - Petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned Letters dated 31st December, 2020 whereby Respondents have directed the Bankers of the Petitioner Company to Freeze and/or Provisionally attach the bank accounts of the Petitioner Company - Petitioner submits that the Court had vide its order dated 7 th January 2021 [ 2021-TIOL-77-HC-DEL-GST ] granted permission to the Petitioner to use the overdraft facility enjoyed from ICICI Bank, Standard Chartered Bank and Allahabad Bank - Petitioner now submits that since freezing of the bank accounts is causing grave hardship, without going into the merits or demerits on the order impugned in the present petition, the Petitioner is willing to offer a valuable security, being an immovable property, which can secure the interest of the Revenue for the tax amount in dispute. Held: Bench directs that the Petitioner shall within a period of 7 days, submit a proposal to the Respondents, giving the complete particulars along with copies of the complete chain of title documents of the immovable property offered as a security; the immovable property should be of value not less than the tax amount in dispute; that it should also be free from any subsisting charge, liens, mortgages or encumbrances, property tax fully paid up to date and not involved in any legal conflicts; that as and when required, Petitioner shall produce the original title deeds, provide all necessary information relating to the property, for the satisfaction of the concerned officer; that the Revenue shall consider the proposal and if so required, investigate, and verify the title, ascertain the value and marketability of the immovable property and take a decision on the same within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the offer, and communicate the same to the Petitioner - Matter to be listed on 15 th April 2021: High Court [para 5, 6] - Matter listed: DELHI HIGH COURT2021-TIOL-243-HC-DEL-GST

RCI Industries And Technologies Ltd Vs Commissioner DGST

GST - Challenge is made to the order dated 10th September, 2020 passed by respondent No. 2 blocking Input Tax Credit in Electronic Credit ledger of the petitioner - challenge is also being made to the Constitutional validity of Rule 86A of the CGST Rules - Counsel for GNCTD submits that on 14th January, 2021 = 2021-TIOL-138-HC-DEL-GST , an order has been passed under Rule 86A recording the reasons for blocking credit; that the said order has been communicated to the petitioner and furthermore there is a statutory remedy available under Section 107 of the Act to assail the said order and since there is an alternate efficacious remedy available, the present petition should not be entertained. Held: Counsel for Revenue submits that the counter affidavit has been was filed on behalf of Central GST authorities, however, Bench observes that the same is however not on record, therefore, directed that the counter-affidavit is placed on record and Rejoinder, if any, to the said counter-affidavit, be filed within a period of two weeks - Matter listed on 5 th April, 2021: High Court [para 6, 7]

- Matter listed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-242-HC-MUM-ST

Amrish Rameshchandra Shah Vs UoI

ST - Petitioner is a Chartered Accountant by profession and is a partner in a firm - This firm had filed Income Tax returns and has paid service tax - Based on the declaration made in the Income Tax return, a view has been taken by the respondent no. 3 that the renumeration received by the petitioner from the firm is subject to service tax and since this has not been paid, impugned SCDN has been issued - Court queried with the  petitioner as to why he had not filed reply to the SCN and instead invoked the writ jurisdiction to which the petitioner submitted that the impugned SCDN has been issued without jurisdiction - Petitioner also refers to the decision of CESTAT, Bangalore, Alpa Management Consultants P. Ltd. - 2007-TIOL-388-CESTAT-BANG where it is held that service tax cannot be recovered based on the returns shown in the income tax returns; that the Supreme Court had dismissed the Civil Appeal filed by the Commissioner of Service Tax. 

Held: Respondents directed to file reply affidavit by the next date - Meanwhile, stay granted of the impugned SCDN dated 30.12.2020 - Matter listed on 15.03.2021: High Court [para 8]

- Stay granted: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-71-CESTAT-DEL

Muzaffar Ali Sheikh Vs CC

Cus - Seizure of gold coins - The Air Intelligence Unit recovered 151 gold coins along with 2 gold bangles - It appeared to Revenue that the said 151 gold coins recovered from possession of the appellant, have been illegally smuggled into the country and thus, were liable for confiscation under Customs Act - The appellant contested the SCN by filing the reply denying allegations, stating that the said gold coins in question are of Indian origin - As per the Appraisement Report, the coins belongs to British era of the period 1902 to 1910, pertaining to the King Edward VII, who reined during the period 1901 to 1910, and was the emperor of India also - The gold coins in question were in circulation in India during the British Indian period and are commonly/readily available in India - He also produced the original receipt issued by P.P. Jewellers in respect of two gold bangles - Admittedly the seized gold coins are of Indian origin even the approved valuer have not certified the seized gold coins as of foreign origin - The inscription on coins evidently prove that the gold coins are of Indian origin, and were part of the monetary system and were in circulation during the British India period - Kind Edward VII, was the emperor of U.K. and India was under British Rule during the relevant period, and thus there is no anomaly as to the Indian origin of the gold coins - The allegation by Revenue that the gold coins are of foreign origin has got no basis, and is a wild guess work - The inscription on the gold coins ipso fact prove that the gold coins as are of Indian origin - The impugned order is vitiated for placing selective reliance on the statement of appellant under Section 108 - The presumption in favour of Revenue under Section 123 is not attracted - Accordingly, the impugned order is not sustainable and same is set aside - The Revenue authority is directed to return the gold coins forthwith to the appellant within 45 days: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-70-CESTAT-BANG

Bharti Airtel Ltd Vs CST

ST - The appellant is a telecom service provider - They had inadvertently paid an amount towards service tax under category of "Business Auxiliary Service" on the services provided to a foreign mobile service provider who enabled the subscriber of said foreign service provider to avail International in-bound roaming facility - The appellant had filed a refund claim for said amount - A SCN was issued to appellant as to why their refund claim should not be rejected under Circular 90/1/2007-ST as their services were delivered and consumed in India and Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1994 made applicable to service tax refund matters vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Admittedly, the appellant has filed the appeal on 19/12/2007 but the same was wrongly filed before the Commissioner of Service Tax which was located in the same building - The factum of receipt of appeal in the office of Commissioner of Service Tax is admitted in the correspondence between the appellant and the Department - After filing the appeal, the appellant vide its letter dt. 01/12/2008 and subsequent reminder dt. 12/12/2010 requested the Commissioner(A) for grant of personal hearing - The appellant even filed RTI application to find out the where about of appeal and came to know that the appeal is lying with Commissioner of Service Tax - If the appeal was filed wrongly before Commissioner of Service Tax, then it was the duty of CST to have sent the same to Commissioner(A) who was located in the same building but the same was not done by Department and therefore the time spent in pursuing the appeal before the wrong forum is condonable - Since the appeal was filed on 19/12/2007, which is deemed to be filed well within time and hence the dismissal of appeal on time bar is not sustainable and therefore the matter is remitted back to the Commissioner (A) with direction to decide the appeal on merits after complying with the principles of natural justice: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: BANGALORE CESTAT