2021-TIOL-NEWS-060 Part 2, Dated: Friday, March 12, 2021

2021-TIOL-NEWS-060 Part 2 | March 12 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-498-ITAT-AHM Control Plus Oil And Gas Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs ITO Whether 73-days delay in filing appeal merits being condoned where the same is not attributable to any negligence of the assessee in not filing appeal within limitation - YES: ITAT Whether interest paid on borrowed capital after the asset is put to use for business purposes, is allowed to be claimed - YES: ITAT Whether utilization of loan for acquisition of capital asset in the earlier AYs is not an obstacle for treating interest expenditure as revenue expenditure u/s 36(1)(iii) r/w Explanation 8 to Sec 43A of the Act - YES: ITAT - Assessee's appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD ITAT 2021-TIOL-497-ITAT-AHM DCIT Vs Camphor And Allied Products Ltd Whether any addition can be made to assessee income merely on the basis of difference in consumption of electricity and raw material - NO: ITAT - Revenue's appeal partly allowed: AHMEDABAD ITAT 2021-TIOL-496-ITAT-PUNE Suresh Chunnilal Sharma Vs ITO Whether disallowance u/s 40A(3) should be sustained in case cash payments exceed stipulated limit notwithstanding the fact that transactions are genuine and parties are identifiable– YES: ITAT. Whether where interest free funds available with assessee are sufficient to meet its investment and at the same time loan is raised, it can be presumed that investments are made from interest free funds and hence, no disallowance of interest should be made to that extent– YES: ITAT - Case Remanded: PUNE ITAT 2021-TIOL-495-ITAT-DEL Puneet Traders Vs ITO Whether when assessee submits to prove its claims regarding unexplained cash deposit, he should be given one final opportunity to do so in interest of justice – YES: ITAT - Case Remanded: DELHI ITAT

GST CASE


	2021-TIOL-127-SC-GST Satyakam Arya Vs UoI GST - The petitioner, an individual, filed the present petition, seeking certain relief in the context of the GST Amnesty Scheme - The petitioner sought that the GST Amnesty Scheme effected through its Notification bearing No. 52/2020 dated 24.05.2020 be extended for two months - It was also sought that the exhibiting amount collected under the garb of the late fee, be refunded - It was also sought that the upper cap on late fees be put to the extent of Rs 500/- per return & to exempt the late fee being charged or the lockdown period starting from 25.03.2020 till 30.06.2020 on account of delayed filing of GST return. Held - The reliefs pertain to the realm of policy, on which, it would be inappropriate to entertain a proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution - The Amnesty Scheme itself lies in the realm of a policy intervention by the Union Government - The terms on which the Amnesty has been granted are hence matters of policy - There is no merit in the petition: SC - Writ petition dismissed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MISC CASE


	2021-TIOL-126-SC-VAT CCT Vs Rujhan Studio Whether the product unstitched 'embroidered ladies suit' is classifiable under Serial 1 of Schedule V to the UPVAT Act, which is a residuary entry - YES: SC - Appeal disposed of: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2021-TIOL-125-SC-SERVICE-LB Madras Bar Association Vs UoI Service Matter - The application had been filed by a Judicial Member of the ITAT, seeking that directions be issued to permit her to continue as Member (J), ITAT, till attainment of the age of 62 years - The applicant applied for appointment as a Judicial Member, ITAT pursuant to a notification dated 17.04.2013 and her name was short-listed by the Selection Committee but she could not be appointed as certain records were misplaced - Other persons selected pursuant to the advertisement issued in 2013, were appointed prior to 2017 before the rules made under the Finance Act, 2017 came into force - The petitioner had filed an application to the CAT, seeking that directions be issued to expedite her selection, but such application came to be rejected - The petitioner made several representations seeking modification of the offer of appointment and to permit her to continue till she attains the age of 62 years - As the three year period is to expire on 18.03.2021, the present application has been filed. Held - The Attorney General submitted that the petitioner is entitled to continue for a period of 5 years and seek re-appointment thereafter in accordance with Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017 - As this application is taken up today in view of the retirement of the applicant on 18.03.2021 in accordance with the appointment order, it would be sufficient at this stage to direct the continuance of the applicant till 17.03.2023 - Hence it is directed that the petitioner continue as Member(Judicial), ITAT till 18.03.2023 - List M.A.No.111 of 2021 along with Dy.No.5510 of 2021 and Dy.No.5526 of 2021 on 03.05.2021: SC LB - Writ petition Allowed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

INDIRECT TAX

2021-TIOL-124-SC-NDPS

NCB Vs Lokesh Chadha

NDPS - This appeal arises from judgment of High Court by which the application filed by respondent seeking suspension of sentence under Section 389(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been allowed - The offence of which the respondent has been convicted by Special Judge arises out of the provisions of Sections 23(c) and 25A of the NDPS Act, 1985 - The findings of Special Judge indicates that the respondent who was a proprietor of a courier agency was complicit with a foreign national in booking of two parcels which were found to contain 325 grams of heroin and 390 grams of pseudoephedrine - Where the trial has ended in an order of conviction, the High Court, when a suspension of sentence is sought under Section 389(1) of CrPC, must be duly cognizant of the fact that a finding of guilt has been arrived at by the Trial Judge at the conclusion of the trial - This is not to say that the High Court is deprived of its power to suspend the sentence under Section 389(1) of CrPC - The High Court may do so for sufficient reasons which must have a bearing on the public policy underlying the incorporation of Section 37 of NDPS Act - The High Court unfortunately has not applied its mind to the governing provisions of NDPS Act - On the basis of the material which emerged before the Special Judge and which forms the basis of the order of conviction, no case for suspension of sentence under Section 389(1) of CrPC was established - While concluding, however, the court hasten to add that observations are confined to the question as to whether a case for suspension of sentence was made out and shall not affect the merits of the case when the appeal comes up for hearing before the High Court - The judgment and order of the High Court suspending the sentence of the respondent shall stand set aside and the respondent shall surrender forthwith to the sentence - However, having regard to the fact that the respondent has undergone four years and four months of imprisonment, the High Court is requested to take up the appeal for hearing and final disposal upon the respondent's surrendering to the sentence: SC

- Appeal allowed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

NEWS FLASH


	Malaysia issues ordinance to deal with Corona related fake news; Opposition protests