2021-TIOL-553-ITAT-JAIPUR

Road Infrastructure Development Company Of Rajasthan Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether in absence of change of circumstances in facts of case in hand, assessment must be passed as per principle of consistency in consonance with assessment orders of previous years – YES: ITAT Whether when neither borrowed funds are utilised for making investment nor income has been earned during relevant AY, disallowance u/s 14A r/w Rule 8D is not justified– YES: ITAT

- Assesssee's appeal allowed: JAIPUR ITAT

2021-TIOL-552-ITAT-ALL

Meja Filling Station Vs DCIT

Whether execution of partnership deed by introducing new partners through PoA, amounts to mere reconstitution of partnership firm - YES: ITAT Whether when no return is filed by taxpayer, then evidences procured through search & seizure will constitute incriminating material which may result in undisclosed income - YES: ITAT Whether material found and seized during search operation shall have no bearing on determination of total income of taxpayer, if he has already declared such income u/s 139(1) - YES: ITAT Whether once books of account are rejected for want of supporting vouchers and details, then income of taxpayer is required to be estimated - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: ALLAHABAD ITAT

2021-TIOL-551-ITAT-DEL

Continental Construction Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether where income has not actually accrued to assessee, can it be taxed– NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: DELHI ITAT

2021-TIOL-682-HC-KAR-GST

UoI Vs Asaid Paints Ltd

GST - The intra-court appeals are against the common order wherein, the Single Judge allowed the petitions and directed the appellants to permit the petitioners to file/revise the TRAN-1 either electronically or manually on or before 31.12.2019 - The issue arises is with regard to the petitioners, being permitted to carry forward input tax credit, allowing any balance in their credit account under the earlier regime by filing or revising the GST who had already filed, but beyond the time as specified under the provisions of Rule 117 of Rules of 2017 - It is well-settled that the petitioner has a right to file input credit on goods procured at the time of filing of returns as same would have been credited in the account of respective petitioners at the time of procurement of goods - This right is according to the petitioners, analogous to an advance payment of tax - That under Section 140(1) of the Act for availing of the input tax credit under erstwhile regime and for a transitioning under new GST regime, certain conditions have to be fulfilled - The petitioners have complied with all these conditions - They also contended that under the GST regime, there is no provision relatable to lapsing of the credit as such - However, the bone of contention between the parties is with regard to the petitioners not filing their TRAN-1 or revised TRAN-1 within the period prescribed under Rule 117 of the Rules - Whether, on account of the said fact they would be denied the benefit of credit input - It is submitted at the Bar that by an amendment made to sub-rule (1A) of Rule 117, the period has been extended till 31.08.2020 - Sub-rule (1A) was added to Rule 117 by an amendment by virtue of a Notfn dated 10.09.2018 - Thereafter, the said Rule has undergone two further amendments on 09.10.2019 and 31.12.2019 - The single Judge has been persuaded by the judgment passed in Adfert Technologies 2019-TIOL-2519-HC-P&H-GST in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners must be granted relief by giving them another opportunity to file/revise TRAN-1 either electronically or manually on or before 31.12.2020 - The reasoning of Single Judge and the relief granted would not call for any interference except to the extent of extending the time within which they would now have to file TRAN-1 - The said time-frame has now expired even after successive extensions on 30.08.2020 - Therefore, the petitioners are permitted to file/revise TRAN-1 either electronically or manually on or before 31.03.2021 - The revenue is at liberty to verify the genuineness or the merits of the claim in accordance with law: HC

- Writ appeals dismissed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-681-HC-ALL-SERVICE

All India Central Excise Inspectors Assn Vs UoI

Service Matter - The petitioner is an association of officers working for the Central Excise Department at the rank of Inspector - The Petitioner claimed that upon enactment of the CGST Act, there was no provision for Central Excise Inspectors to wear any uniforms - The Petitioner claimed that the Respondent-Union insisted upon Excise Inspectors wearing their uniform & upon saluting those officers in uniform - The Petitioners further claimed that the Uniform was being misused for personal works and that members of the Petitioner's association, who did not wear the uniform were being issued memos and were being subjected to disciplinary action - The Petitioner claimed that without any prescribed Uniform for Central Excise Inspectors, the Respondent-Union could not insist for wearing of uniform & that no disciplinary action could be taken against members of the Petitioner's association who did not wear any Uniform - The Petitioner further claimed that not wearing a uniform could not be termed as disobedience or insubordination - The Petitioner further claimed that its members were directed to wear the Uniform & provide Guard of Honor to visiting higher officers, despite there being no provision for the same.

Held - As per the own case of the petitioner, there is practice of wearing Khakhi Uniform by the officers of different wings of the Department which was started sometime in the year 1938 - However, there is no uniformity in these uniforms - As such, it cannot be said that the insistence of wearing Uniform by the members of the Petitioner's association has been introduced recently in the Department, without there being any order or direction - It appears that certain members of the Petitioner's association were found guilty of insubordination and disobedience for not paying honour and respect to the National Flag and certain disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them - The Petitioner's association has filed the instant writ petition on behalf of those persons - The manner in which the present petition is filed, is not appreciable, when disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the General Secretary of the petitioner's association and he has himself challenged the same before the Central Administrative Tribunal where the case is pending - The petition appears to have been filed with ulterior motive to put undue pressure on the authorities, which cannot be appreciated: HC

- Writ petition dismissed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT