I-T- In absence of contrary of proved by Revenue and following order of High Court in assessee's own case on similar issue for previous years, reopening of assessment can be set aside : ITAT

I-T - Additions framed on account of unexplained expenditure are unsustainable where such expenditure is actually incurred & assessee is able to explain its source : ITAT

I-T- Since similar donations has been accepted not only in earlier years but also in subsequent years, therefore, in view of rule of consistency, such donations cannot be disallowed : ITAT

I-T- There can be difference in method of accounting adopted by service receiver and service provider, but it cannot be reason to conclude that there is tax avoidance on part of assessee trust: ITAT

I-T- Receipts against sale of transferable development right are not chargeable to capital gain tax : ITAT

I-T - As per Sec 244A, interest is to be allowed to assessee till the date of grant of refund sought: ITAT

I-T - Addition of unexplained credits u/s 68 can be made when assessee fails to prove genuineness of loans or creditworthiness of parties : ITAT

I-T- Addition made by AO can be telescoped against income surrendered by assessee during search : ITAT

VAT - Pre-deposit cannot be insisted upon twice where it has been paid once during first round of litigation: HC

CX - When on the date of issue of invoices, time limit for taking credit was not prescribed, therefore, in respect of those invoices, subsequent amendment stipulating the time limit for availing credit shall not apply:CESTAT

2022-TIOL-312-HC-AHM-VAT

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Vs State of Gujarat

Whether where pre-deposit as a condition for hearing of appeal, cannot be insisted upon for the second time, where pre-deposit is already made during first round of litigation - YES: HC

- Matter remanded: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-192-CESTAT-AHM

NR Agarwal Industries Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The issue arises is that whether the appellant is entitled for cenvat credit on input service when the credit was availed after one year from the date of issue of invoices - There is no dispute that the appellant have availed cenvat credit after one year from the date of issue of invoices - However, the date of issue of invoices are undisputedly prior to amended Rule 4(1) whereby the time limit of six months/one year from the date of issue of invoices was fixed for availing cenvat credit - When on the date of issue of invoices, time limit for taking credit was not prescribed, therefore, in respect of those invoices, subsequent amendment stipulating the time limit for availing credit shall not apply - The identical issue has been considered by Tribunal and held that in respect of invoices issued prior to amendment, time limit prescribed in amended Rule 4(1) and 4(7) shall not apply - Accordingly, appellant is entitled for cenvat credit - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2022-TIOL-191-CESTAT-DEL

All India Laminated Fabrics Manufactures Association Vs Designated Authority

Anti Dumping - The appeal was filed for modification of final findings dated 28.10.2021 of designated authority in such a manner that the anti-dumping duty could continue for a further period of five years - After the issuance of final findings dated 28.10.2021 issued by designated authority, Central Government issued a notification dated 24.01.2022, withdrawing the duty imposed by notification dated 08.08.2016 - The designated authority concluded in final findings that cessation of duty was not likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury - The designated authority was justified in holding that there did not exist sufficient factual material to allow designated authority to conclude that there was a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury in case of cessation of anti-dumping duty - The findings on issues have been given by designated authority - It needs to be noted that in terms of Rule 16 of 1995 Rules, designated authority was only required to inform all interested parties of the essential facts under considerations which would form the basis of its decision and these facts were disclosed by designated authority in disclosure statement - The burden of proof was on the appellant to provide tangible evidence in sunset review to substantiate that cessation of anti-dumping duty would lead to continuance or recurrence of anti-dumping and appellant failed to discharge this burden - It is seen that there is no specific provision either in Tariff Act or the 1995 Rules that specifically governs how the designated authority should examine the likelihood - The designated authority has relied upon paragraph (vii) of Annexure-II to the 1995 Rules to examine the factors relevant for determining threat of material injury - The appellant themselves have relied upon factors (b) and (d) given in paragraph (vii) in connection with the likelihood of dumping and injury and the designed authority also appreciated all the factors while determining the likelihood, including the significant rate of decrease in dumped imports, imports entering India at prices which are not at all suppressing or depressing the domestic prices - This approach of designated authority is supported by the decision of Supreme Court in Rishiroop Polymers 2006-TIOL-26-SC-AD , which decision was followed by the Tribunal in APAR Industries 2006-TIOL-938-CESTAT-DEL-LB - A perusal of final findings of designated authority reveal that the trend of import volumes and landed (import) prices, and its effect on domestic industry together with the increase in capacity, production, sales of the domestic industry, its market share, along with negative price undercutting and negative injury margins led the designated authority to conclude that there was no likelihood of injury - It is for this reason that the designated authority recommended discontinuation of anti-dumping duties - The final findings of designated authority, therefore, do not call for any interference: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-190-CESTAT-ALL

Arun Enterprises Vs CCGST

ST - The appellant is in appeal against impugned order wherein their appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation without going into the merits of case - As far as limitation is concerned, only plea in appeal is that the appellant was in Meerut jail for 796 days - Another 234 days was explained on the ground that the appellant is 'the only son and always under mentally fear for the life and safety of life and property along with family members and aged, senior citizen parents and hiding/staying far was from Meerut, in an unknown different places and was not aware about the legal remedy to O-I-O' - Subsequent period of delay was attributed to COVID pandemic - No substance found in any of the said grounds - Neither Section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944 nor Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994 provide for condonation of delay in filing appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) beyond one month - Respectfully following the ratio of judgment of Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises 2007-TIOL-231-SC-CX , impugned order is correct and proper in dismissing the appeal for delay and it calls for no interference: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT