2021-TIOL-316-HC-AHM-IT

Pr.CIT Vs Shreno Ltd

Whether a disallowance of bad debts written off can be made merely because the company is suffering from huge losses - NO: HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-315-HC-AHM-IT

Kantibhai Dharamshibhai Narola Vs ACIT

Whether reopening of assessment after a periof of 4 years on the basis of third party information without proper investigation is maintainable - NO: HC

- Assessee's appeal allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-264-ITAT-DEL

New City Of Bombay Manufacturing Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether disallowance of lease deed registration charges has to be deleted when the entire expenditure is borne by a partner of the Joint Venture Company - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT

2021-TIOL-263-ITAT-MUM

Maia Intelligence Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT

On appeal, the Tribunal notes the assessee's intent to seek settlement of the matter under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. Thus it finds no reason to keep the present appeal pending. However, it also permits leave to the assessee to restore the appeal if its application under the Scheme is not accepted.

- Assessee's appeal disposed of: MUMBAI ITAT

2021-TIOL-262-ITAT-MUM

Hathway Cable And Datacom Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether where an addition or disallowance is not permissible in law the same cannot be fastened upon the assessee on his concession - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

2021-TIOL-261-ITAT-MUM

Shakti Share Shoppee Pvt Ltd Vs ITO

Whether addition u/s 68 can be made when assessee has sufficiently discharged his burden of proof to the genuinness of the transaction - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

2021-TIOL-260-ITAT-PUNE

DCIT Vs Runwal Multihousing Pvt Ltd

Whether where an assessee switched over from the Percentage completion method to the Project completion method in a bona fide manner and continued with the changed method in the years to come, then it is the latter of the two which must be taken into account when computing deduction u/s 80IB(10) - YES: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: PUNE ITAT

2021-TIOL-259-ITAT-AHM

Sardar Mehsana Owners Association Vs ACIT

Whether reopening of assessment can be made solely on the basis of information received of the ADIT (Investigation) and without forming an independent opinion about the same - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD ITAT

2021-TIOL-322-HC-ALL-GST

Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Reliefs inter alia sought are for Issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents No. 1 & 2 to constitute 'Regional Bench' and 'State Bench' for the State of U.P, at the seat of jurisdictional High Court and also such number of 'Area Benches' in the State of U.P, as may be recommended by Respondent No. 6; Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 2.4.2018 & 7.2.2018 (Annexure-1 & 2) passed by Respondents No. 4 & 5 respectively; Issue a writ, order or direction quashing the Circular dated 6.2.2017 issued by Respondent No. 2, to the extent it directs that Rule 138 of UPGST Rules under which Notification No.1014 dated 21.7.2017 was issued prescribing e-way bill 01, gets automatically revived on rescinding of Notification No.138 dated 30.1.2018.

Held:

+ It is pertinent to mention that dealers in the State of Uttar Pradesh falling under the CGST Act/ U.P. GST Act and aggrieved with the orders of first appellate authority under Section 107, have been left remediless inasmuch as Appellate Tribunal under the Act is not available in the State of Uttar Pradesh for preferring appeals under Section 112 of the CGST Act/ U.P. GST Act. 

+ The Appellate Tribunal being the last fact finding authority and its not availability in the State of Uttar Pradesh, is causing serious prejudice to the rights of aggrieved persons for statutory appeal which is continuing since the enactment of the CGST Act/ U.P. GST Act. 

+ Therefore, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the legislative mandate of Section 109(6) of the CGST Act, Bench directs as under:

(i) The GST Council shall forward its recommendation of Agenda Item No.6 of the 39 th Meeting held on 14.03.2020 to the Central Government/ respondent No.1 within two weeks;

(ii) Thereafter, the respondent No.1/ Central Government shall, within next four weeks, specify by notification in terms of sub-Section (6) of Section 109 of the CGST Act the "State Bench" at Prayagraj (Allahabad), of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal and four Area Benches at Ghaziabad, Lucknow, Varanasi and Agra, in the State of Uttar Pradesh for exercising the powers of the Appellate Tribunal.

(iii) The respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6 shall ensure that the State Bench and the Area Benches of the Appellate Tribunal (Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) in the State of Uttar Pradesh are made functional as far as possible from 01.04.2021.

(iv) Since the challenge to the impugned orders relates to questions of fact and the Appellate Tribunal is the last fact  finding authority, therefore, Bench leaves it open for all the petitioners to challenge the impugned orders before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the CGST Act/ U.P. GST Act as and when the State Bench and Area Benches of the Appellate Tribunal are constituted in the State of Uttar Pradesh. However, till expiry of the period of limitation for filing appeals under Section 112 of the CGST Act after establishment of the State Bench and Area Benches or till appeals are filed, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners herein pursuant to the impugned orders passed by the first authority or the first appellate authority. Liberty is also granted to the petitioners to avail such remedy as available to them under law in respect of other reliefs which have not been considered and decided by this judgment.

+ Writ petitions are disposed of [para 32, 33]

- Petitions disposed of: ALLAHABADvHIGH COURT

Cus - Assessee is in appeal against impugned order whereby, their imported seized goods had been provisionally released subject to execution of bond for full value with Bank Guarantee - The assessee challenged the said order on the ground that the condition of bank guarantee is exorbitant therefore, they seek reduction in the amount of bank guarantee - Considering the fact of the present case which is not different from the facts involved in case which was decided by Tribunal in the case of WITTENIA MULTITRADING PVT. LIMITED 2020-TIOL-1202-CESTAT-AHM , Tribunal need not to discuss much on the issue - From the said order, it can be seen that the Tribunal considering all the common facts came to the conclusion that for provisional release of goods, bond of total value of goods and bank guarantee of the amount of 50% of total duty is sufficient - The seized goods shall be released on furnishing bond of total value of goods with bank guarantee of the amount of 50% of the total duty: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT