2021-TIOL-743-HC-KAR-IT

Pr.CIT Vs Esteem Royale

On appeal, the High Court finds that the issues raised by the Revenue stand settled against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee, vide a number of judgments. Hence the Court disposes of the present appeal accordingly.

- Revenue's appeal disposed of : KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-597-ITAT-MUM

ACIT Vs Nkgsb Cooperative Bank Ltd

Whether expenditure incurred by Co-operative bank on acquisition of another co-operative bank, is intangible in nature and hence covered u/s 32(1)(ii) - YES: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

2021-TIOL-596-ITAT-AHM

DCIT Vs Mas Financial Services Ltd

Whether maximum disallowance u/s 14A could be made equivalent to exempt income earned by taxpayer, in absence of any expenses being incurred to earn such income - YES: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD ITAT

2021-TIOL-595-ITAT-BANG

Maruthi Traders Vs ITO

Whether when there existed bona fide reasons for filing belated appeal, then such delay merits to be condoned - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: BANGALORE ITAT

2021-TIOL-745-HC-AHM-GST

Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Amendment has been proposed in Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017 vide clause 103 of the Finance Bill, 2021, therefore, interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017 can only be levied on the net tax liability and not on the gross tax liability - In such circumstances, the demand raised by the respondent is not in accordance with law: High Court [para 5, 6]

GST - It appears that the respondent No.3 has issued Form GST DRC 01 under Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Plain reading of rule 142(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 indicates that Form GST DRC 01 can be served by the proper officer along with the notice issued under Section 52 or Section 73 or Section 74 or Section 76 or Section 122 or Section 123 or Section 124 or Section 125 or Section 127 or Section 129 or Section 130 and that too, electronically as a summary of notice – Bench does not find reference of any notice under Section 50 so far as Rule 142(1)(a) of the CGST Rules is concerned - In such circumstances, DRC-01 could not have been issued for the purpose of recovery of the amount towards interest on delayed payment of tax - Notice should have been issued in Form GST DRC 07 since 142 makes it clear that the order referred in sub-rule(5) shall be treated as the notice for recovery - Writ application succeeds and is hereby allowed: High Court [para 17, 19]

- Application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-744-HC-KOL-GST

Raj Metal Industries Vs UoI

GST - Petitioners have challenged the vires of Rule 86A of the CGST Rules/WBGST Rules and Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act/WBGST Act; also challenge the blocking of the electronic credit ledger that was done on December 8, 2020 - Petitioners further challenge the actions initiated by the State GST authorities with respect to summons issued on October 19, 2020 by arguing that when a proceeding has been initiated by the Central authorities, the State cannot step into the same [Sub-Section 2(b) of Section 6 of the West Bengal GST Act refers].

Held: Bench is of the view that the summons that have been issued on October 19, 2020 by the State GST is, prima facie, in violation of Section 6(2)(b) of the WBGST Act - Accordingly, Bench directs stay of the above summons and any proceedings thereunder - Affidavits-in-opposition is to be filed within four weeks; reply thereto, may be filed within two weeks thereafter: High Court

- Matter posted: KOLKATA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-742-HC-MAD-VAT

Krt Motors Pvt Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner (CT)

Whether best of judgment assessment order passed on grounds of the assessee's returns being incomplete, can be sustained, where the AO passing the order did not wait till filing of Form WW report - NO: HC

- Writ petition allowed : MADRAS HIGH COURT