 |
 |
2021-TIOL-NEWS-285 Part 2 | December 03, 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. |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
TIOLAWARDS |
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
INCOME TAX |
 |
|
  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
2021-TIOL-1922-ITAT-DEL
ITO Vs Bhartiya Urban Infrastructure And Land Development
Whether as per CBDT Circular 3/2016 dated 26.02.2016 assessee is not required deduct TDS as consideration received on 01.04.2000 to 31.05.2013 is to be taxed as capital gains in hands of recipients - YES : ITAT
- Revenue's appeal dismissed: DELHI ITAT
2021-TIOL-1921-ITAT-JABALPUR
Prince Rai Vs ITO
Whether reference made by AO to DVO for determination of different aspects of matter being invalid, assessment order is to be set aside – YES: ITAT
- Assessee's appeal allowed: JABALPUR ITAT
2021-TIOL-1920-ITAT-JAIPUR
Narendra Lakhi Vs DCIT
Whether additions framed on allegations of unaccounted payments made by assessee, cannot be sustained where based on presumptions alone - YES: ITAT
- Assessee's appeal allowed: JAIPUR ITAT
| |
|
 |
   |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
TODAY'S CASE (INDIRECT TAX) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
GST CASE |
 |
|
  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
2021-TIOL-2240-HC-P&H-GST
Aru Nanda Vs State of Haryana
GST - Anticipatory bail - In pursuance of impugned order, petitioner has joined the investigation and even to show her bona fide, they had deposited an amount of Rs.10 lakhs with trial Court - Petitioner has further submitted that without prejudice to their rights, said amount of Rs.10 lakhs be released to GST Authorities - The allegations in FIR are primarily against Harish Kumar Rampal, who was Chartered Accountant and it was his duty to file requisite GST returns and also the fact that the petitioner is only involved in case as there is a transfer of some amount and also the fact that as per petitioner, amount of Rs.21 lakhs out of said Rs.31 lakhs has already been returned to Pooja Sablok and the balance amount of Rs.10 lakhs has already been deposited with trial Court, regarding which there is no objection in case the said amount is deposited with the GST Authorities and also the fact that the petitioner has joined the investigation, petition for grant of anticipatory bail is allowed and interim order is made absolute - It is however, clarified that the payment of amount of Rs.10 lakhs is without prejudice to rights of petitioner as well as the complainant, as by virtue of said payment, neither the petitioner has admitted her guilt in the matter nor the complainant has fully and finally settled the matter with petitioner so as to entitle her to file petition for quashing of FIR solely on the basis of compromise: HC
- Petition allowed: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-2239-HC-AHM-GST
Imperial Dyeing Ltd Vs Sate of Gujarat
GST - The petitioner-company is engaged in dyeing and printing of fabrics on job work basis - It was earlier registered under the GVAT Act and later came under the GST regime from 01.07.2017 - The petitioner required certain capital goods such as machinery and intended to use the same for dyeing work - The petitioner also needed printing fabrics - The petitioner claimed that there was no prohibition under the VAT Act to claim proportional ITC in relation to capital goods, where partly used for manufacturing taxable goods and partly used for exempt goods - The petitioner also relied on the provisions of Section 18(1)(d) of the GST Act, which permit ITC in respect of capital goods in cases where exempt goods became taxable goods - According to the petitioner, the fabrics manufactured by it were taxable goods under the GST Act and the petitioner claimed Input Tax Credit of tax paid on purchase of capital goods under the VAT Act - It carried forward such credit into GST Electronic Credit Ledger by filing Form GST TRAN-1 under the GST Act and such Input Tax Credit was not utilized under the VAT Act - The petitioners raised the grievance that the notice was issued only for assessment under the VAT Act, whereupon the Revenue passed order disallowing transitional tax credit and raised tax demand with interest and penalty - The assessee further claimed that such disallowance was made without issuing SCN or providing opportunity of hearing.
Held - The issue ssentially raised is of non-availment of an opportunity of hearing, more particularly, while disallowing the transitional tax credit and also noticing that the Input Tax Credit was lying unutilized in the Electronic Credit Ledger and the respondent authority has demanded the tax under the VAT Act where this aspect also has been covered, let the opportunity of hearing be made available to the petitioner - Hence the order in challenge is set aside without entering into merits of the case, solely on grounds of non having provided opportunity of hearing: HC
- Writ petition dispossed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
|
|
|
 |
   |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
INDIRECT TAX |
 |
|
  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
2021-TIOL-2238-HC-P&H-ST
Schlumberger Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST
SVLDRS, 2019 - The petitioner was served with SCN whereby the amount was sought to be recovered on account of cenvat credit - Before the proceedings on aforesaid SCN could proceed further, an amnesty scheme by way of Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 was introduced - The petitioner being eligible under said scheme availed the same by making declaration in Form SVLDRS-1 - Designated Committee disagreeing with petitioner's computation issued Form SVLDRS-2 wherein the difference in amount payable was calculated to be Rs.1,50,95,499 - Admittedly, petitioner has deposited amounts of Rs.2,29,61,536/- and further sum of Rs.1,16,51,272/- on account of interest and Rs.34,44,227/- as penalty, even prior to issuance of SCN - The issue arises is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for credit of amount deposited under head of interest and penalty while quantifying the amount payable under the scheme - A bare reading of Section 124(2) reveals that the relief calculated under Section 124(1) is subject to condition that any amount paid during enquiry, investigation or audit has to be deducted when issuing the statement indicating the amount payable by declarant - The provision only talks of amount irrespective of whether it has been paid as tax or interest or penalty - Thus, the view taken by Designated Committee cannot be sustained - There is another side to the story - Had the petitioner remitted the entire amount paid by him towards tax, respondents would have given credit of entire amount and his interest liability would have been waived off as well - The petitioner cannot be punished for depositing the amount under different heads once the provision mandates to discount the amount paid during the investigation dehors the head it has been deposited under - Designated Committee is directed to re-consider the claim of petitioner within two weeks by adjusting amounts paid towards interest and penalty, in accordance with law and the petitioner is directed to make the payment within two weeks from the date Designated Committee issues SVLDRS-3 : HC
- Application disposed of: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT |
|
|
 |
   |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
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 |
 |
|
 |