Click to Nomination Visit: tiolawards.in

I-T - Provisions of Ss 207 & 208 pertaining to advance tax liability & conditions for payment thereof, are inclusive & are applicable independent of each other: ITAT

I-T - If assessee receives income out of investments with co-operative society, same is entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(d), matter restores to file of AO to examine claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) afresh : ITAT

I-T - Period of limitation provided u/s 263(2) would begin to run from date of assessment order and not from date of order of reassessment : ITAT

I-T - Invalidity of primary proceedings for lack of jurisdiction can be challenged in appellate proceedings arising out of a collateral proceeding : ITAT

I-T - Reopening of assessment u/s 147 on basis of change of opinion by AO on same set of facts is not permissible by law : ITAT

I-T - Adjustment of advances against receivables does not lead to cessation of liability: ITAT

I-T - In case of completed assessment, no addition can be made in absence of any incriminating material : ITAT

I-T- When respective payees has taken into account amounts in question in respective returns of income filed u/s 139 and has subjected the same to tax, then as per the '2nd proviso' to Sec. 40(a)(ia), no disallowance of amounts would be warranted in the hands of the assessee : ITAT

ST - As per settled position in law, levy of service tax on ocean freight is unconstitutional: CESTAT

Cus - CESTAT not vested with jurisdiction to hear appeals pertaining to goods imported or exported as baggage: CESTAT

2021-TIOL-702-CESTAT-AHM

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The issue arises is; whether any exemption notification will come into force from the date of its issue or from the date of its publication in official gazette as per Section 5A of CEA, 1944 - whether the principle of unjust enrichment will apply when the sale price remained unchanged even after increase in the rate of duty and price of commodity was controlled by government - As regard the first issue, relevant provision is made under Sub-section (5) of Section 5A - Any notification issued under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2A) come into force on a date when it is published and offered for sale on the date of its issue - Appellant have submitted the Notfns and search gazettes by Ministry - From the search, it is clear that the notfn 22/2014 was published on 22nd November, 2014 and notfn 24/2014 was published on 11th December, 2014 therefore, both the notifications will be effective from the date of its publication i.e. 22nd November, 2014 & 11th December, 2014 respectively therefore, the contention of lower authority that the notification will be effective from the date of its issue of notification is absolutely incorrect - Thus, refund on this ground is admissible to appellant - As regard the issue of unjust enrichment, since the same was not raised before Commissioner (A), no finding was given by Commissioner (A) and as requested by appellant, this issue needs to be reconsidered - Matter remanded to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order - Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2021-TIOL-701-CESTAT-BANG

Fci Oen Connectors Vs CCT & CE

ST - The appellant has challenged the impugned order, whereby Commissioner (A) has upheld the rejection of refund claim under Section 11B of CEA, 1944 - It is the case of appellant that they have filed a refund claim being the service tax paid on ocean freight for the period April 2017 to June 2017 but High Court of Gujarat in the case of SAL Steel Ltd. 2020-TIOL-163-HC-AHM-ST has clearly held that the levy in question was ulta vires Section 64, Section 66B and Section 65B(52) of the FA, 1994 which decision was followed by Gujarat High Court again in the case of Polycab India Limited wherein the High Court had held that the levy of service tax on ocean freight is unconstitutional - No justification found in the reasons adopted for rejection of refund claim by the lower authorities and hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

2021-TIOL-700-CESTAT-BANG

Nizar Moulavi Abdul Khader Vs CC

Cus - The assessee is in appeal against impugned order - The O-I-O records a finding that the gold was found in foot band worn for medical purpose on both the feet of assessee, well hidden/covered with black socks, shoes put over them - This is claimed as having been found on the 'person of assessee' but not found in the baggage, the assessee has filed appeal under Section 129A ibid - Per contra, Revenue contends that the appeal is not maintainable before this forum since there was an attempt to import gold through accompanied baggage in concealed form and hence, it is the Section 129DD that applies, for which the only remedy available to assessee is to prefer a review petition before proper authority - Section 129A(1)(a) makes it clear that no appeal shall lie to Tribunal in respect of any order which relates to any goods imported or exported as baggage - The gold which is imported here having been excluded by definition of "personal effects" under Baggage Rules ibid, automatically falls within the ambit of baggage and hence, no appeal could be entertained by this forum: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: BANGALORE CESTAT