I-T - Assessee cannot be denied benefit of deduction u/s 54 if he has a house at time of transfer of property and makes investment in another residential property : ITAT

I-T - When assessee has obtained deduction in earlier AY based on provisioned amount, payments made during subsequent AY out of such provisioned amount cannot again qualify for deduction : ITAT

I-T - As per proviso to sec. 147, assessment can be reopened beyond four years only if assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts : ITAT

I-T - Additions framed on the grounds of undisclosed income are unsustainable where no material linking such income to assessee is found in course of Search operations: ITAT

I-T - Money that does not belong to assessee cannot be added in assessee's hands as his unexplained income u/s 68 : ITAT

I-T - Assessee is entitled for deduction of payments made to LIC towards group gratuity scheme : ITAT

I-T - Income of co-operative society is exempt u/s 80(P) : ITAT

I-T - Non-disposal of objection raised by assessee against reopening by AO is a fatal mistake and vitiates the order of AO: ITAT

CX - Since the activity of segregation is a manufacturing activity, clearance of paper waste in DTA after payment of Central Excise duty at concessional rate of duty is correct: CESTAT

ST - The appellant is not liable to pay Service Tax for Screening of Films and payments to distributors in their theatre: CESTAT

Cus - When physical examination was taken by opening the seal of container, department found regarding misdeclaration, both as regards quantity and description, penalty under Section 117 of the Act is upheld: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-265-CESTAT-AHM

Unitech International Vs CCE & ST

CX - Appellant, a 100% EOU have cleared paper waste after segregation process of waste imported during period October, 2003 to January, 2005 on payment of excise duty by availing benefit of concessional Notification No. 23/2003-C.E. r/w para 6.8 (A&E) of EXIM Policy 2002 to 2007 - The main thrust of Revenue is that the activity undertaken by appellant for segregation were not covered by definition of Manufacture w.e.f. 01.04.2002 as per EXIM Policy 2002 to 2007 - Therefore, they are not entitled to get the benefit of said Notfn to avail benefit thereof for payment of duty at concessional rate - Said observation of authorities below is against the decision of Tribunal in appellant's own case - In view of said decision, as the activity undertaken by appellant amounts to manufacture, therefore, appellant is entitled for benefit of Notification No. 23/2003-C.E. for payment of duty at concessional rate - No merit found in impugned order, same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2022-TIOL-264-CESTAT-MUM

Reliance Mediaworks Ltd Vs CST

ST - Appellant is engaged in business of exhibiting cinematographic films across India in theatres owned by it or taken on rent - They acquires the rights/ license to exhibit films at designated theatres from various distributors by entering into separate license agreements for each film - Department issued a SCN proposing to recover service tax along with applicable interest and penalty for the period 2009-10 to 2013-14 - Department has alleged that appellant is providing infrastructure support services to producers/distributors of films under BSS - The agreement in the present appeal is almost the same as the agreement in other appeals that have been decided including that in Inox Leisure Ltd. 2021-TIOL-703-CESTAT-HYD - It would be seen from the agreement that the producer/distributor is engaged in the business of production and distribution of films, while the appellant is an exhibitor engaged in business of exhibition of films and owns/operates a chain of multiplex theatres - If appellant was providing such a service, it would be the producers/distributors who would be making payments to appellant, but what comes out from a perusal of agreement is that in consideration for distributor agreeing to grant to appellant the license to exploit theatrical rights of a motion picture, appellant would have to pay such revenue share to distributor as provided for in said clause - In fact, the distributor agreed to grant to appellant the non exclusive license to exploit the theatrical rights of a motion picture during the term - In view of the decision of Supreme Court in Faqir Chand Gulati 2008-TIOL-147-SC-MISC and decision of Tribunal in Mormugao Port Trust 2016-TIOL-2843-CESTAT-MUM , no service tax can be levied on appellant under BSS - Thus, it is not possible to sustain the confirmation of demand by impugned order, same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-263-CESTAT-DEL

D J Import Vs CC

Cus - The issue arises is, whether penalty under Sections 112 and 117 of Customs Act, 1962 have been rightly imposed on appellant (importer) - Admittedly, appellant had not filed any Bill of Entry and thus he is not the importer, as defined in Section 2(26) ibid - Thus, appellant cannot be said to have violated any provision of Section 111 ibid and thus not reliable to any penalty under provisions of Section 112 ibid, as he has not done or committed any act which would render the goods reliable to confiscation - So far as penalty under Section 117 ibid is concerned, conduct of appellant is also dubious and not clean - In spite of having knowledge that the goods dispatched by Shipper vide aforementioned Bill of Lading, being not as per order and containing counterfeit goods, being a regular importer it was his duty to cooperate with Customs and inform suo motu regarding the nature of goods dispatched by Shipper, and also of his intention of having abandoned the same goods - The goods were lying in port after unloading by shipping line for about three months, and neither the Appellant had filed any Bill of Entry nor had given any intimation of his decision to abandon the goods - It was only when physical examination was taken by opening the seal of container on 05.08.2014, the Customs department found regarding the misdeclaration, both as regards quantity and description - Penalty under Section 117 ibid is upheld - However, quantum of penalty is reduced: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: DELHI CESTAT