 |
|
2021-TIOL-NEWS-192| August 14, 2021
|
|
|
Dear Member,
Sending following links. Warm Regards,
TIOL Content Team
TIOL PRIVATE LIMITED.
For assistance please call us at + 91 7838594749 or email us at helpdesk@tiol.in. |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
INCOME TAX |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-TIOL-1328-ITAT-DEL
Naresh Kumar Vs ACIT
Whether addition can be made as undisclosed investment only because there is difference in valuation made by valuer and value stated by assessee during survey in his statement as approximate estimate of stock available with him – NO: ITAT.
Whether once assessee has substantial interest-free fund, no addition/disallowance can be made in that regard – YES: ITAT
- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: DELHI ITAT
2021-TIOL-1327-ITAT-DEL
Green Valley Infracity Pvt Ltd Vs ITO
Whether penalty imposed on assessee consequent to enhancement of income, will survive, where the enhancement of income itself has been quashed - NO: ITAT
- Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT
2021-TIOL-1326-ITAT-JAIPUR
DCIT Vs Pallavi Mishra
Whether once assessment is framed, AO can take suo motu decision to convert protective assessment into substantive assessment – NO: ITAT
- Revenue's appeal dismissed: JAIPUR ITAT
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MISC CASE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-TIOL-1681-HC-KAR-MISC
Farhana Vs State Of Karnataka
PITNDPS - Detention - The Petitioner has preferred this petition to declare the detention order passed by department as illegal - He has contended that Section 3(1) of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS) empowers the authorities specified thereunder to pass detention order and the Commissioner of Police is not entitled to pass the detention order and as such, order of detention is illegal - The State Government, by virtue of powers conferred under Section 3(1) has empowered the Officers specified thereunder namely, Commissioner of Police and Range Inspector General of Police - So, it cannot be gainsaid by petitioner that Commissioner of Police is a delegate of State Government or the State Government has abdicated to exercise its power and there has been delegation of powers - That apart, document annexed to the affidavit filed by Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home would also clearly indicate that Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru is of the rank of Principal Secretary to Government drawing the payscale equivalent to the Principal Secretary - Thus, Additional Director General of Police and Commissioner of Police, Bangalore city are of the rank of a Principal Secretary to Government and they are competent to pass the order under Section 3(1) of PITNDPS Act as they are specially empowered for the purposes of said Section by the appropriate Government - Clause (f) of Section 9 of PITNDPS Act mandates that appropriate Government may confirm the detention order in every case where Advisory Board has reported that in its opinion there is sufficient case for detention of a person - Thus, under Secretary of the State Government being empowered to issue confirmation of detention order in terms of Section 9(f) read with Section 11 of PITNDPS Act, has issued the impugned order dated 22.12.2020 and there is no infirmity in that regard - As such, contention raised in that regard stands rejected - The detenue was detained on 01.10.2020 and reference has been made by appropriate Government within five weeks and reference so made by State Government has been received by Advisory Board on 27.10.2020 which is well within the period of five weeks prescribed under clause (b) of Section 9 of PITNDPS Act - Report of Advisory Board has been forwarded and received by the appropriate Government on 11.12.2020 which is well within the period of 11 weeks prescribed under clause (c) of Section 9 of PITNDPS Act - There is no infirmity in the impugned orders: HC
- Writ petition dismissed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INDIRECT TAX |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-TIOL-471-CESTAT-DEL
Ajay Gupta Vs CC
Cus - This appeal is filed against order of absolute confiscation of gold jewellery weighing 547.5 gm. seized from the possession of appellant while he was in the transit area of IGI Airport - Further, appellant was imposed a composite penalty under Sections 112 and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 - The appellant was a passenger in transit from Bangkok to Kathmandu - He was admittedly found in transit lounge at IGI Airport, T-3, Delhi, meant for international passengers, where they can wait for the purpose of changing flight without entering into India, as such they are not required to go though any formality of immigration as well as under the provision of Customs Law - The appellant was not intermixing with any other person or trying to deliver any goods or any packet or jewellery for the purpose of smuggling - The appellant have not violated any of the provisions under Customs Act, 1962 read with the Foreign Trade Policy - The whole case of Revenue is misconceived and has no legs to stand - The source of gold jewellery he was wearing is cogently explained, which has not been found to be untrue - The impugned order is set aside and the penalty imposed is also set aside - The concerned officer of customs is directed to return the seized gold jewellery to the appellant forthwith within a period of thirty days: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2021-TIOL-470-CESTAT-DEL
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs CCGST & CE
ST - The SCN mentions that the appellant had rented out its immovable properties to various business firms/individuals on periodical rent/lease amount and services provided by appellant would fall under category of ‘renting of immovable properties' defined under section 65(90a) of FA, 1994 and made taxable w.e.f. 01.06.2007 under section 65(105)(zzzz) of Finance Act - Appellant filed a reply, denying the allegations made in SCN - The Adjudicating Authority, however, confirmed the demand with interest and penalty - Same was partially allowed by Commissioner (A) - There is no dispute that the relevant date is 25.11.2012 - The show cause notice was issued on 08.05.2014, which would be within eighteen months from 25.11.2012 - The Commissioner (A), therefore, committed no illegality in holding that demand for the period 01.04.2012 to 30.06.2012 was within the statutory period of eighteen months from relevant date: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT
2021-TIOL-469-CESTAT-MUM
Nssl Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, CGST & CE
ST - The appellant had filed refund application claiming refund of service tax paid by it under the Reverse Charge Mechanism - The refund applications filed by appellants were returned on the ground that input tax credit can only be claimed under GST/CGST Act, 2017 and not otherwise - The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon sub-section (8)(a) of Section 142 of CGST Act, 2017 for rejecting the refund applications filed by appellant - Appellant is not falling under scope and ambit of sub-section (8)(a) of Section 142 inasmuch as no assessment/adjudication orders were passed by competent authorities in determining the tax liability, which the appellant was required to pay under erstwhile statute - Rather, case of appellant is governed under provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 144 ibid - An assessee can file the application, claiming refund of amount of CENVAT credit after appointed day and that the said application shall be disposed of by authorities in accordance with erstwhile statute - The authorities below have not questioned the issue regarding entitlement of appellant to CENVAT credit under erstwhile CENVAT statute - The refund claims filed by appellants should merit consideration under provisions of sub-section (3) of section 142 ibid, and as such, it should be entitled for benefit of refund of service tax paid by it - No merits found in impugned order, insofar as it has rejected the refund application filed by appellant: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TIOL PRIVATE LIMITED.
TIOL HOUSE, 490, Udyog Vihar, Phase - V,
Gurgaon, Haryana - 122001, INDIA
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 |
|
|
|
