2021-TIOL-266-HC-KAR-IT

Pr.CIT Vs SN Builders And Developers

On appeal, the High Court observes that similar issues were considered by this very court and settled in favor of the assessee, vide findings recorded in the assessee's own case for a past AY. Hence the present appeal is disposed off accordingly.

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-265-HC-KAR-IT

Kodagu District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether disallowance u/s 14A is not permitted when the AO does not record finding of being dissatisfied with correctness of assessee's claim - YES: HC

- Assessee's Appeal allowed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-264-HC-KAR-IT

Karnataka State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether computation of book profit as per MAT provisions requires provision for bad and doubtful debts to be added back and consequently, book profits under MAT provisions are to computed for such earlier assessment years in accordance with amended scheme of Income Tax Act - YES: HC

- Assessee's Appeal allowed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-233-ITAT-DEL

OPG Securities Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether disallowance u/s 14A r/w Rule 8D warrants being restricted to the extent of exempt income earned - YES: ITAT Whether disallowance u/s 14A of loans & advances given to sister concerns is sustainable, where own interest-free funds available have been utilised - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: DELHI ITAT

2021-TIOL-232-ITAT-DEL

JCIT Vs Adobe Software India Pvt Ltd

On appeal, the Tribunal observes that once Form No 3 has been issued to the assessee by the Designated Authority, the appeals filed by the Revenue or the assessee in respect of disputed income are deemed to be withdrawn.

- Revenue's appeal disposed of: DELHI ITAT

2021-TIOL-231-ITAT-MUM

Deepika A Mehta Vs DCIT  

2021-TIOL-230-ITAT-MUM  

ACIT Vs Piramal Enterprises Ltd

Whether re-assessment proceedings are to be upheld if initiated on the basis of Revenue Audit Objection which is accepted by the Department & so falls under the exception provided in CBDT Circular No.5/2017 - YES: ITAT

- Revenue's application dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

2021-TIOL-229-ITAT-MUM

Silver Spark Apparel Ltd Vs DCIT

On appeal, the Tribunal observes that the assessee seeks settlement of the matter under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. Hence the Tribunal finds no reasons to keep the present appeal pending.

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

2021-TIOL-228-ITAT-KOL

DCIT Vs JMD Proteins Pvt Ltd

Whether addition u/s 68 on account of difference in amount realized from trade debtors for the outstanding amount can be made when the amount for the cheque not encashed during the previous year has been reversed back in the current year - NO: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: KOLKATA ITAT

2021-TIOL-276-HC-AHM-GST

Hayan Trading Company Vs UoI

GST - Writ applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order of detention and the SCN; release of goods and conveyance and return of the money allegedly extorted under pressure.

Held: While issuing notice, Court had directed that the vehicle as well as the goods be released, upon payment of the tax, in terms of the impugned notice - The writ applicant availed the benefit of the interim order and got the vehicle along with the goods released on payment of the tax amount - The proceedings, as on date, are at the stage of show cause notice, under Section 130 and the same shall go ahead in accordance with law - It shall be open for the writ applicant to point out the case of Synergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd - 2019-TIOL-546-HC-AHM-GST and rely on the observations made by this Court in paragraph Nos. 99 to 104 - It is now for the applicant to make good his case that the show cause notice, issued in Form GST-MOV-10, deserves to be discharged - Writ application stands disposed of: High Court [para 4 to 7]

- Application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-275-HC-AHM-GST

Hadid Infra Ispat Vs State of Gujarat

GST - By its earlier order dated 16.05.2019, Bench had ordered that the goods and the conveyance be released - Matter is now at the stage of MOV-10 - Writ-applicants shall file his reply and shall make his case good for the purpose of getting notice discharged in MOV-10 - Ultimately, if the final order of confiscation is passed under Section 130 of the Act, then the writ-applicants will have the remedy to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Act - Writ-application stands disposed of: High Court [para 4]

- Application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-274-HC-MAD-GST

EPMS Property Services Vs STO

GST - Challenge in these Writ Petitions is to three orders of assessment, all dated 18.10.2019, passed by the State Tax Officer (R1) under the CGST Act, 2017.

Held: Bench need hardly advert to the merits since the petitioner has not been afforded an effective opportunity of hearing in the matter – Order has been passed ex parte - Petitioner had received the orders of assessment and filed statutory appeals on 28.02.2020 with a delay of 30 days - Applications seeking condonation of delay were also filed - However, on 13.03.2020, the appeals were returned for the reason that they were not filed online, date of receipt of orders was not produced and pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax was not effected - COVID pandemic struck and the petitioner appears to have lost sight of proceedings thereafter - Medical certificate placed on record supports the position that the petitioner was not in a position to have defended its stand effectively during the course of proceedings for assessment and circumstances thereafter also prevented effective redressal of the same - The petitioner has, however, approached the appellate authority in time and has not been negligent in taking recourse to remedial measures - impugned orders dated 18.10.2019 are thus set aside - The petitioner will appear before the first respondent on 10.02.2021 at 10.30 am and denovo orders are to be passed on or before 24.03.2021 - attachment of the bank account of the petitioner will continue till passing of, and subject to final orders of assessment: High Court [para 5, 7]

- Petitions allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-75-CESTAT-DEL

GE Power Services India Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.CIT

ST - The appellant is engaged in providing scheduled and unscheduled maintenance service in respect of steam turbines and generators, engineering services and repair services - An audit was conducted in respect of operation of appellant under rule 5A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 - It culminated in issuance of two SCNs - Two issues arise for consideration; the first is whether the tool kits provided by appellant to associated companies would be a service of "supply of tangible good for use" and would be a taxable service contemplated under section 65 (105)(zzzzj) of Finance Act, 1994; and the second issue is whether service tax would be leviable on rental charges for baked oven under "supply of tangible good for use" - It is seen from order of Principal Commissioner that the demand has been confirmed only on the basis that the ownership of kits was not transferred - This is not a factor that has to be examined for levy of service tax - For a 'deemed sale' there is a transfer of possession and effective control and this what is also contemplated in article 366 (29A)(d) of Constitution - If a specific transaction involves transfer of ownership/title, there can possibly be no requirement to invoke the deeming provisions-"transfer of right to use goods", because such a transaction would be chargeable to Sales Tax/VAT as sale of goods - In fact, the Department itself had issued a clarification through a Circular dated February 28, 2008, in which a distinction was drawn between the taxable category of 'supply of tangible good for use' and the 'deemed sale' under the Sales Tax Act - Reference needs to be made to another Circular dated August 23, 2007 issued by the Department that clarifies that the payment of VAT/Sales Tax on a transaction has to be treated as sales of goods and levy of service tax on such transaction would not arise - The submission of appellant that tool kits were in possession of the associated companies with the right to use the kits to the exclusion of appellant and the appellant could also not have passed the right to any other person has not be controverterd in the impugned order nor has any material been provided by Department to controvert this fact - Thus, it is not possible to sustain the finding recorded by Principal Commissioner on first issue - As regards to second issue, it would be seen that the Principal Commissioner has confirmed the demand by holding that "the ownership" of the baking oven continued with the foreign supplier, as a result in which the transaction would qualify as a service involving supply of tangible good for use - According to appellant, the baking ovens were imported and they were in exclusive possession of appellant - Thus, when the possession and exclusive control over the imported goods was in the hands of appellant, the transaction would qualify as deemed sale by foreign companies - The Principal Commissioner was, therefore, not justified in holding that the transaction would result in levy of service tax under the category of supply of tangible good for use - The impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-74-CESTAT-DEL

Caparo Engineering India Ltd Vs CCGST

CX - The Appellant has its manufacturing unit located at khasra numbers 54 and 55 in village Alakhdevi, tehsil-Gadarpur, district - Udham Singh Nagar in the State of Uttarakhand - It is engaged in the manufacture and clearance of parts and accessories of motor vehicles - Two SCNs were issued to appellant for period January, 2012 to December, 2016 and January, 2017 to March, 2017 respectively mentioning therein that the appellant had wrongly availed benefit of Exemption Notification dated June 10, 2003 that provided for commodity and area based exemption to excisable goods manufactured in a unit falling in specific khasra numbers in specified villages of specified tehsil in the State of Uttarakhand - The dispute is with regard to khasra numbers 54 and 55 of village Alakhdevi - The Notification refers to tehsil Kichcha for these two khasras - According to appellant, khasra numbers 54 and 55 in village Alakhdevi at the time of the issue of Notification dated June 10, 2003 were in tehsil Kichcha, but upon issue of the Notification dated February 11, 2004, when 70 villages from tehsil Kichcha were transferred to the tehsil Gadarpur, khasra numbers 54 and 55 of village Alakhdevi came to be transferred to tehsil Gadarpur - It is clear that after the issue of Notification dated February 11, 2004 tehsil Kichcha does not contain khasra numbers 54 and 55 of village Alakhdevi - These Khasra numbers exist on the ground and have to fall in a certain tehsil - Such being the position, it is not possible to sustain the finding recorded by Commissioner that since khasra numbers 54 and 55 of village Alakhdevi are not situated in tehsil Kichcha, the manufacturing unit of appellant would not be entitled to exemption from the whole of the duty of the excise leviable thereon - It is not possible to sustain that part of the order passed by Commissioner that confirms the demand of duty, same is, accordingly, set aside: CESTAT

- Appellant's appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-73-CESTAT-MAD

Ingram Micro India Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - The ROM application has been filed by appellant seeking to rectify the error apparent in 2020-TIOL-1724-CESTAT-MAD - Competing classifications are CTH 85176290 by the appellant and 85176990 by the department - However, by mistake the classification confirmed by department has been noted as 85176290 in the last sentence of para 2 - This is an error apparent on the face of record which requires rectification - The classification mentioned in last sentence of para 2 be substituted as 85176990 instead of 85176290 - The second contention put forward by appellant is that the department had classified the product under CTH 85176990 and denied the benefit of Notfn 57/2017 - On perusal of final order, it is found that the Tribunal had held that the goods fall under CTH 85176290, it is sufficiently implied that the appellant would then be eligible for the benefit of Notfn 57/2017 - However, only for clarity purpose, it is specified that the appellant would be eligible for benefit of exemption Notfn 57/2017 - The ROM application is allowed: CESTAT

- ROM application allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT