Luthra And Luthra Chartered Accountants Vs ACIT

Whether disallowance of remuneration to partners in a partnership company can be made when there is specific provision in partnership deed regarding payment to remuneration to partners - NO:ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: DELHI ITAT

Auto Ignition Ltd Vs Addl CIT

Whether amendment made in Income tax Act for certain compliance u/s 35(2AB) should be made prospectively - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT

Alsisar Hotels And Resorts Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether additions framed in respect of employee's contribution to ESI & PF merit being quashed where such payment is made before due date of filing ITRs - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: JAIPUR ITAT

2022-TIOL-12-ITAT-BANG

Slv Housing Development Corporation Vs ACIT

CX - The appellant is engaged in manufacture and clearance of Spray Nozzles - During audit, it was observed that the appellant is engaged in trading of goods such as pipes and compressors and was availing CENVAT credit on certain input services which were commonly used in manufacturing and trading activity - SCN was issued, wherein a demand was proposed under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 @ 5% on the difference value of sale along with interest and penalty and it was further proposed that the credit reversed by appellant should be appropriated against demand raised in SCN - It is the case of appellant that they had already reversed the CENVAT credit and had also exercised option to reverse the credit on proportionate basis as per Rule 6(3A) ibid - The issue is squarely covered by ratio laid down in Reliance Industries Ltd 2019-TIOL-1593-CESTAT-AHM - Further, adjudicating authority has raised the demand inter alia alleging that there was a delay in exercising option, which is only as per the directions of this Bench in the first round, which should have been given by adjudicating authority himself - Moreover, the demand raised for a mere delay in exercising the option is highly disproportionate since the delay, if at all, is a mere irregularity and the same may, at the most, attract some interest which perhaps has even been paid by appellant while reversing the amount - The impugned order cannot sustain and accordingly, the same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

CX - The issue arises is as to whether the appellant is entitled for Cenvat credit in respect of various input services - As regard to Electrical Maintenance Service, credit was denied on the ground that the service is a work contract which is excluded within ambit of definition of input service - This was not the charge either in SCN or finding in O-I-O - From this ground Commissioner (Appeals) clearly erred in denying the credit - Moreover, this service was used for Electrical Maintenance which is directly related to manufacturing activity of appellant, therefore, credit is admissible - Similarly, maintenance of 66KV power line supplying power to plant has also direct use in manufacturing activity of appellant's factory hence, credit is admissible - Regarding the credit of input service in respect of Maintenance of Computer Hardware on shop floor, AMC charges for Desktops, printers, Scanners, Laptop and FM service for resident engineers, Commissioner (Appeals) denied the credit as this service was used for resident engineers and is related to the personal benefit of employee - The service of Maintenance of Computer Hardware on shop floor and AMC charges of various equipments such as Desktops, printers and Scanners are for the purpose of manufacturing activity of appellant and not for the personal use of resident engineers - Merely because the engineers are resident it was wrongly presumed that all these services are for their personal use - When all the services were used within the premises of the factory, it is clear that the said services are used in relation to manufacture of final product, therefore, the credit is admissible: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

ST - The adjudication began against appellant based upon the third party information as was received from Income Tax Department for year 2012-2013 about appellants earning the income for providing taxable service but for not paying service tax - The said amount was accordingly proposed to be recovered vide SCN - Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal only in terms of section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 - The requirement of this section is mandatory and the failure thereof results in rejection of appeal ' in limine ' - However keeping in view the acknowledgement of appellant for pursuing this matter to be adjudicated on merits, it is being reasonable in interest of justice that the matter be remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals) with the direction to appellant to make good the absence of payment of amount of mandatory pre deposit prior for the appeal being heard by Commissioner (Appeals) - Appellant is allowed an opportunity to make compliance of section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to adjudicate the matter on merits after aforesaid compliance on the part of appellant is made: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: DELHI CESTAT