Click to Nomination Visit: tiolawards.in

I-T - Cash credits - Onus of proving source of income does not lie with assessee more so when no causal link is established between assessee & source of income: HC

I-T - Writing off advance recoverable is genuine business expense allowable u/s 37(1) & cannot be treated as capital expenditure, as no benefit of enduring nature arises therefrom: ITAT

I-T - Since CIT (A) has just rejected evidentiary value of unregistered sale agreements without examine details submitted before it, case is to be restored to CIT (A) for afresh consideration: ITAT

I-T - Assessee's financial health cannot be a criterion to judge allowability of an expense :ITAT

I-T - Income surrendered by assessee can be treated as business income, where entries thereto are made in books of accounts; such business income can be set off against business loss: ITAT

I-T - Education cess being additional surcharge levied on income-tax is part of income-tax, thus education cess cannot be claimed as allowable deduction : ITAT

I-T - Quantum of incentives earned by a dealer may be dependent on quantum of certain sales hence, these incentives cannot be termed as commission in normal course of buying and selling goods as envisaged in section 194 H : ITAT

GST - Personal hearing is statutorily imperative qua sub-section (4) of Section 75 - Orders set aside on this sole ground: HC

GST - To decide whether impugned services qualify as import of services or not, it is required to determine the place of supply, which is beyond jurisdiction - Authority refrains from giving any ruling: AAR

2021-TIOL-2158-HC-MAD-GST

Aakanksha Distributors Pvt Ltd Vs Asstt. Commissioner (ST)  

GST -   Court is informed that there is nothing to demonstrate from the records that personal hearing was either offered or held with regard to the impugned orders qua writ petitioner.

Held:  Personal hearing is statutorily imperative qua sub-section (4) of Section 75 of TN-GST Act - Both the impugned orders are set aside on the sole ground that personal hearing has not been given to the writ petitioner - By the consent of both sides, personal hearing is now fixed on 12.11.2021 - Post personal hearing in the aforesaid manner, the respondent shall re-do the legal drill qua two proceedings on the merits of the matter in accordance with law, as expeditiously as business of the respondent would permit and in any event, within four weeks therefrom  - Writ Petitions are disposed of with the aforementioned directives: High Court [para 6, 7]

- Petitions disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-256-AAR-GST

Workplace Options India Pvt Ltd

GST -   Applicant entered into a global arrangement with Beacon Health Options Inc.-US which is a company established in USA and does not have any office or fixed establishment in India, for the purpose of mutual referral of clients and work agreements to Workplace Option group companies across the globe - Beacon US, as part of the global arrangement, has entered into arrangement, for the Indian market involving Workplace Option India Pvt. Ltd., the Applicant and referred a customer M/s FIS Global Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. to the applicant for performing employee assistant services, for which the Beacon US charges referral fee to the applicant, by raising an invoice directly to the applicant, equal to certain percentage of the price charged by the applicant to FIS India, as agreed by both the applicant and Beacon US - Applicant seeks advance ruling on the following questions  viz.  Whether the services procured by the applicant from Beacon US in respect of the referral of the FIS client is liable to tax under the IGST Act, 2017 and consequently whether the said service qualifies as an import of service under Section 2(11) of the said enactment? And If the answer to the above is yes, who is the person liable to tax in respect of the said services rendered by Beacon US to applicant? 

Held: In terms of Section 5 of IGST Act 2017, IGST is levied on all inter-state supplies of goods or services, and in terms of Section 2 (21) of Act, ibid, 'supply' shall have the same meaning as assigned to in Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017 - The applicant, with regard to taxability of the impugned service, admitted that the said service amounts to supply in terms of Section 7 of the CGST Act 2017 - It is also admitted by the applicant that the impugned services are imported into India and shall be treated to be an inter-state supply in terms of Section 7(4) of the IGST Act 2017 - Section  2(11) of IGST Act, 2017 , in terms of which "import of Service" has been defined as a supply of service where  - The supplier of service is located outside India; The recipient of service is located in India; and The place of supply of service is in India - In view of the above, to decide whether the impugned services qualify to be import of services or not, it is required to determine the place of supply of the impugned service, which is beyond the jurisdiction of this authority in terms of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act 2017 - Thus the Authority refrains from giving any ruling in this regard - Application is disposed of without any ruling as the determination of place of supply is beyond the jurisdiction of this authority: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-721-CESTAT-BANG

24/7 Customer Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & CST

ST - The appellant is engaged in export of Call Centre Services (Business Auxiliary Services), besides domestic supply of Renting of Immovable Property Services - They claimed refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Same was partly rejected - This Bench has considered the relevance of most of services including the issue of nexus in various decisions including the cases of same appellant, for different periods, vide order 2021-TIOL-160-CESTAT-BANG and 2021-TIOL-593-CESTAT-BANG - The view of this Bench takes care of nexus test and thus holds good for all the input services involved, except Advertising Agency Services, Pandal or Shamiana Services and Real Estate Agent and Consultant Services - With regard to Advertising Agency Services, this issue has been held to be an essential input service in case of Heartland Bangalore Transcription Ser. (P) Ltd. 2010-TIOL-1764-CESTAT-BANG & Agriculture Products Market Committee - In view of the same, denial of input service credit in impugned order appears to be bad - With regard to Pandal or Shamiana Service, appellant has only explained that the same are availed for staff events - The very ratio in case of Idea Cellular Ltd. 2011-TIOL-1111-CESTAT-DEL would equally apply here as well, and hence this service is also held to be ineligible service - The denial of same by Commissioner appears to be bad to this extent also - As regard to Real Estate Agent and Consultant Service, appellant has claimed that the said service was availed for renting of office space but however, no explanation is made available as to the nature or spaces that are rented out and hence, no interference is called for: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

2021-TIOL-720-CESTAT-DEL

Birla Corporation Ltd Vs CCGST

CX - The appellant was discharging his tax liability on the basis of local prevalent market rate till 31.3.2011 and stopped the said practice w.e.f. 01.04.2011, rather has prayed for refund of the amount as is higher if paid on the basis of local prevalent market rate instead of being paid under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 - The moot controversy to be adjudicated is as to whether any change in the definition of Industrial Consumer under Rule 3 of Legal Metrology (PC) Rules, 2011 as came into effect from 01.04.2011 has caused any change as far as the duty liability of appellant is concerned - No doubt due to this change, appellant can be categorised industrial consumer but still he is consumer of such product as has been manufactured by him, i.e. the appellant is using cement manufactured by him but for the construction of his own premises - This admitted fact is sufficient to hold that Valuation Rules, 2000 shall not be applicable to the appellant's case - Though the appellant has relied upon the Circular of 01.07.2002, but perusal of the entry No. 5 thereof shows that same is for arriving at the valuation cost of captive consumption - It becomes clear that the appellant still fall under the said Rule if and only if manufactured cement is used by him for manufacture of his another industrial product - The applicability of Rule 8 of Valuation Rules has rightly been denied by Authorities below - Appellant is therefore, not entitled for refund, claiming the said applicability - Order under challenge is accordingly, upheld: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-719-CESTAT-DEL

Forum of Acrylic Fibre Manufactures Vs UoI

Anti Dumping - The appellant has filed this appeal feeling aggrieved by failure of Central Government to levy anti-dumping duty on the imports of "Acrylic Fibre" the subject goods originating in or exported from Belarus, European Union, Peru and Ukraine the subject Countries, even though the designated authority, in its final findings notified on 01.09.2020, had recommended imposition of anti-dumping duty for a period of five years - The relief claimed in this appeal is for issuance of a direction to Central Government to issue a notification for imposition of anti-dumping duty based on recommendation made by designated authority - In view of the decision in case of M/s. Jubilant Ingrevia Limited , the decision said to have been taken by Central Government not to impose anti-dumping duty, despite a recommendation having been made by designated authority for imposing of anti-dumping duty is set aside and the matter is remitted to Central Government for taking a fresh decision on the recommendation made by designated authority: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: DELHI CESTAT