 |
|
2021-TIOL-NEWS-042 Part 2 | February 19, 2021
|
|
|
Dear Member,
Sending following links. Warm Regards,
TIOL Content Team
TIOL PRIVATE LIMITED.
For assistance please call us at + 91 850 600 0282 or email us at helpdesk@tiol.in. |
 |
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAX |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-TIOL-338-ITAT-PUNE
ACIT Vs Everest Education Society
Whether AO is permitted to make addition only in respect of issues stated in notice u/s 147 – YES: ITAT
- Revenue's Appeal dismissed: PUNE ITAT
2021-TIOL-337-ITAT-BANG
JCIT Vs United Spirits Ltd
Whether income on sale of shares must be regarded as long-term capital gains and not business income, as per IT Act, 1961– YES: ITAT
- Revenue's Appeal dismissed: BANGALORE ITAT
2021-TIOL-336-ITAT-MUM
Excellent Shares And Finance Services Pvt Ltd Vs ITO
Whether reopening of assessment can be made merely on the ground of client code modification - NO: ITAT
- Assessee's appeal allowed: MUMBAI ITAT
2021-TIOL-335-ITAT-CHD
Allahabad Bank Vs ITO
Whether it is fit case for remand where the AO held the assessee to be in default for non-deduction of TDS, but without giving proper hearing to the assessee & without considering the relevant evidences being submitted - YES: ITAT
- Case remanded: CHANDIGARH ITAT
2021-TIOL-334-ITAT-GUW
Poddar Rubber Industries Vs DCIT
Whether when taxpayer has discharged its primary onus in proving transaction on F&O by producing corroborating evidence, then it cannot be treated as bogus on basis of suspicion - YES: ITAT Whether statement recorded during survey u/s 133A can be the sole basis on which adverse inference can be drawn against taxpayer - NO: ITAT
- Assessee's appeal allowed: GUAHATI ITAT
| |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
GST CASE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-TIOL-427-HC-DEL-GST
Pernod Ricard Pvt Ltd Vs AAR & GST
GST - Petitioner submits that they had filed an application for advance ruling before the Authority on 15th June, 2018, seeking ruling on questions raised in respect of its proposed business; that they are aggrieved since the Advance Ruling Authority has not decided its application dated 15th June, 2018 till date; that under the statute s.98(6) of the Act, the application is to be decided within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the application, however, despite lapse of a substantial period of time, no orders have been passed; that the Petitioner is prejudiced and is unable to start the proposed business due to this - Additional Standing Counsel submits that the Advance Ruling Authority of Delhi is presently not functioning as the quorum of two members is not complete; that one member has to be nominated by the Government of NCT, which has been done and the other one has to be nominated by the CBIC and a notification in this regard is awaited.
Held: Bench finds it appropriate to dispose of the present petition by directing that as and when the quorum of Advance Ruling Authority is complete and functioning, the application of the Petitioner be decided expeditiously, and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of completion of the quorum - Also having regard to the fact that since November, 2020, the Advance Ruling Authority has not been conducting the hearings, Bench makes a request to the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor to take up the matter on priority basis and process the nomination received from the CBIC at the earliest - registry is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the Office of the Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi: High Court [para 5, 6]
- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-426-HC-DEL-GST
IBIBO Group Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Collection of Tax at Source - Grievance of the Petitioners is that there are errors in the common portal of the GSTN which is preventing them to file the statement in compliance of Section 52(3) of the Act, 2017 - Respondent states that the grievance urged in the present petitions stands resolved, and now, if the Petitioners were to make an attempt to file the statement on the common portal, they would be able to successfully upload the same - Bench directs the Petitioner to approach Ms. Shrishty Saxena, the Officer concerned, with GSTN on 17th February, 2021 at 11:00 AM for the purpose of filing and uploading the statement in compliance of Section 52(3) of the CGST Act; that the officer will assist the Petitioner in filing and uploading the statement on the online portal and in the event, for any technical reason, the statement is not uploaded on the portal, the officer would accept the statement manually and forward it to the Commissionerate concerned for processing the same; that, if and when the penalty or interest are levied on account of delay in filing the statement, that is eventually filed electronically or manually on 17th February, 2021, as the case may be, the Petitioner would be at liberty to approach the concerned Commissionerate with a representation explaining the reasons for the delay that prevented them to file the statement within the statutory timelines - Petitions disposed of: High Court [para 4, 5]
- Petitions disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INDIRECT TAX |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-TIOL-425-HC-KAR-CUS
CC & ST Vs Sony Sales Corporation
Cus - Following substantial questions of law are before the High Court viz. Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that as the amount in interest cannot be quantified and hence penalty equivalent to duty and interest cannot be imposed under Section 114A?; Whether the Circular No. 61/2002 issued by CBEC is not binding on the adjudicating authorities working under the CBEC? And Whether the terms (conjunctions) 'or' used in Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 has to be read as 'and' for the purpose of imposing penalty under the said Section?
Held:
+ Solitary issue, which arises for consideration in this appeal is with regard to interpretation of provisions of Section 114A of the Act.
+ From perusal of the relevant extract of Section 114A, it is evident that the language employed by the legislature is plain and unambiguous and the provision contains a positive condition with regard to levy of penalty equal to duty or interest and does not contain any negative condition.
+ The expression used is 'or' which is disjunctive between duty or interest and further use of expression “as the case may be” clearly suggest that aforesaid provision refers to two different persons and two different situations viz., one in which a person will be liable to duty and in other he may be liable to pay interest only and provides that in both the situations the person liable to duty would be liable to penalty equal to duty and person liable to interest would be liable to penalty equal to interest. Therefore, in view of law laid down by Constitution bench of Supreme Court [Indore Development Authority Vs. Manohar Lal And Others, AIR 2020 SC 1496], the word 'or' cannot be interpreted as 'and'.
+ Clarification issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs [Circular 61] dated 20.09.2002 cannot be contrary to the plain language of the provision.
+ Substantial questions of law framed in this appeal are answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondent - Revenue appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed: High Court [para 12, 13]
- Appeal dismissed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-424-HC-AHM-CUS
Ambika Creation Vs Addl Director General
Cus - Petitioner inter alia seeks issuance of a writ directing respondent No. 6 to remove the Import Export Code placed under the Denied Entity List of Directorate General of Foreign Trade; directing respondent No. 1, respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 to initiate the proceedings in time bound manner etc. - Petitioner has made a representation dated 26th September 2020 to the Joint Director General, DGGI, Zonal Unit Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad.
Held: Writ-application is disposed of with a direction to the Joint Director General, DGGI, Zonal Unit Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad to immediately look into the representation dated 26th September 2020 and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law within a period of four weeks; also directs the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Surat to look into the representation dated 5th November, 2020 and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of this order: High Court [para 4]
- Application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TIOL PRIVATE LIMITED.
TIOL HOUSE, 490, Udyog Vihar, Phase - V,
Gurgaon, Haryana - 122001, INDIA
Board :
+91 124-6427300
Fax: + 91 124-6427310
Web: https://taxindiaonline.com
Email: updates@tiol.in
__________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY/PROPRIETARY NOTE.
The Document accompanying this electronic transmission contains information from TIOL PRIVATE LIMITED., which is confidential, proprietary or copyrighted and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named on this transmission. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. This prohibition includes, without limitation, displaying this transmission or any portion thereof, on any public bulletin board. If you are not the intended recipient of this document, please return this document to TIOL PRIVATE LIMITED. immediately |
|
|
|
