Address by Shri Nitin Gadkari at TIOL Awards 2021

I-T - CIT (A) is authorised to entertain questions of law for the first time at the appellate stage : HC

I-T - Any amount kept by assessee to meet certain contingencies cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit where no evidence exists to disprove such claim of assessee: ITAT

I-T- If transfer of property takes place on execution of sale deed in preceding year, then capital gain cannot be charged to tax for year under consideration : ITAT

I-T - Re-assessment unsustainable where no failure to make full & true disclosure of material facts is attributed to assessee: ITAT

I-T - Penalty u/s 271B cannot be levied for failure to obtain tax audit report because of a bona fide belief that there is no turnover, gross receipts : ITAT

I-T - When lender confirms nature of transaction but AO is not satisfied, AO should make further inquiry or ensure action is taken in lender's hands not assessee's hands : ITAT

I-T - As per third proviso to sec. 50C(1), where value determined by Stamp Valuation Authority does not exceed 10% of declared sale consideration, declared sale consideration should be accepted : ITAT

I-T - Only portion of income to extent not applied in India will not be eligible for exemption u/s 11: ITAT

VAT - During pandemic when severe restrictions on inter-state movements has been imposed insistence on personal appearance by Revenue is wrong and assessment order passed due to non appearance can be quashed on ground of inadequate hearing : HC

2022-TIOL-355-HC-TRIPURA-VAT

ITC Ltd Vs State of Tripura

Whether during pandemic when severe restrictions on inter-state movements has been imposed insistence on personal appearance by Revenue is wrong and assessment order passed due to non appearance can be quashed on ground of inadequate hearing - YES : HC

- Writ petition allowed: TRIPURA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-356-HC-MAD-CUS

Eden Exports Company Vs Dy.CC

Cus - With regard to export undertaken by petitioner, it is the case of Revenue that export proceeds pertaining to consignment exported by several shipments have not been realised - In order to recover duty drawback availed by petitioner, a SCN was issued - Since the SCN and notice for personal hearing has not been received by petitioner either through electronic mode or to the registered address of petitioner and it has been uploaded in web portal and the petitioner has already closed the business before SCNs are said to have been issued through on-line mode, i.e., web portal, there is some justification on the part of petitioner to claim that the notices have not been effectively issued or served on petitioner - Matter is remitted back to respondent for reconsideration: HC

- Matter remanded: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-213-CESTAT-AHM

Hotel Utsav Vs CCE & ST

ST - A ppellant have been discharging service tax in respect of food served in restaurant to their customers - However, they are not paying service tax in respect of packed food which is sold as take away either on the counter of restaurant or through delivery boys to customer's place - Food is not served in the hotel whereas the same is sold in packed form therefore, as per the nature of this activity, it is clearly a sale of food, no service is involved - This issue is no longer res-integra as the same has been considered by Madras High Court in case of Anjappar Chettinad A/C Restaurant 2021-TIOL-1270-HC-MAD-ST - Therefore, the activity is clearly of sale of food and no service is involved - Accordingly, appellant's activity of sale of food does not fall under category of service - Hence, same is not liable for service tax: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2022-TIOL-212-CESTAT-MUM

Gujarat Colours And Coatings Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Appellant is manufacturer of excisable goods - In their ER-1 return for the month of October 2008, they had assessed duty on goods cleared during that period - The appellant made good the duty that was short-paid, along with interest - Two SCNs were issued to appellant demanding duty in terms of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, in terms of which demand has been made, was considered by Gujarat High Court in case of Indsur Global Ltd. 2014-TIOL-2115-HC-AHM-CX and the said rule has been held to be ultra vires - Accordingly, no merits found in the impugned order, same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT