2022-TIOL-472-ITAT-DEL

Vidya Shree Buildcon Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether additions framed u/s 68 are sustainable where the assessee fails to furnish evidence to prove identity or creditworthiness of creditors or establish genuineness of loan transaction - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: DELHI ITAT

2022-TIOL-471-ITAT-MUM

Versova Kokni Sunni Jamat Trust Vs Centralised Processing Centre

Whether corpus donation received by a trust for utilisation for specific purposes qualifies as capital receipt & is non taxable even if the trust is not registered under section 12A of the Act - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

2022-TIOL-470-ITAT-AHM

Vinod Kumar S Totla Vs ITO

Whether it is fit case for remand where it is to be determined where proceeds from sale of certain land qualify as STCG or LTCG & where such issue is not covered u/s 154 - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD ITAT

CX - CENVAT - If final product could not have been manufactured using a lesser quantity of inputs, then entire inputs must be attributed to having been used in manufacture of said dutiable final product, even if some other exempt product emerges, inevitably: HC

GST - Once correction of the duty drawback code was permitted on payment of fee and penalty, there was no reason to withhold the IGST refund - Interest to be paid @7%: HC

GST - Endeavour on the part of the department should be to secure the amount from the debtors rather than asking them not to make the payment: HC

2022-TIOL-685-HC-AHM-GST

Madhav Copper Ltd Vs State of Gujarat

GST - Cancellation of registration - Endeavour on the part of the department should be to secure the amount from the debtors rather than asking them not to make the payment - Bench is of the view that there should not be any difficulty in allowing the writ applicant to supply the finished goods so that the payment towards the same can be received in the bank accounts - Understanding arrived at between the parties is that once the amount starts getting credited in the Current Account of the writ applicant, a part of the amount may be transferred by the Bank to the Cash Credit Account of the writ applicant - Such transfer shall be with a distinct understanding that it would be only for the purpose of saving the account from being declared as a Non Performing Asset (NPA) -However, the understanding is that the Bank shall not permit a single penny to be utilized by the writ applicant -Department shall also permit the writ applicant to utilize the raw materials lying at the factory premises for the purpose of manufacturing of the finished goods so as to enable the writ applicant to fulfil its contractual obligations - Writ applicant to file an undertaking on oath before this Court and the department as instructed - Also the respondent bank is directed to file an undertaking before the Court and the Department in the manner mentioned - As the writ applicant has already filed an application for revocation of the cancellation of registration in physical form, as an exceptional case, application filed by the writ applicant in physical form should be processed and appropriate order be passed - Department is directed to permit the writ applicant to make the payments towards staff salary, operational expenses, electricity bills etc. from the Cash Credit Account after being satisfied as regards the nature of the payment - The revocation application shall be decided within a period of one week and the intimation to the debtors shall also be issued within one week -All other larger issues involved in this writ application shall be looked into as and when the matter is taken up for further hearing: High Court [para 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12 to 14]

- Interim order passed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-684-HC-DEL-GST

Phoenix Contact India Pvt Ltd Vs CC

2022-TIOL-683-HC-AHM-CX

Pr.CCGST & CE Vs Reliance Industries Ltd

CX - CENVAT - Rule 6 of CCR - Refund - Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods like Motor Spirit, High Speed Diesel etc. - Refund claim was made in respect of the CENVAT Credit Reversed / Paid under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the period between April, 2015 and March, 2016 on removal of the LPG under the Domestic Subsidy Scheme - Revenue has, in the present appeal, primarily contended that the Tribunal has erred in holding that LPG emerges as a by-product and hence the provisions of Rule 6 of CCR have no application; that the judgment in the case of Sterling Gelatin [2010-TIOL-897-HC-AHM-CX] is not applicable to the facts of the present case - Tribunal has observed that it is not as if respondent had set out to manufacture LPG; that the same arises in the refining process and that the same could not have been limited or curtailed the production of LPG nor could have been manufactured other value added products using a less quantity of input of input services as whether the LPG then or otherwise; that when the entire quantity of input and input services was required for manufacture of dutiable finished goods and when LPG emerged inevitably without any deliberate attempt to manufacture it, the provision of Rule 6 (1) was not violated in any manner. Held: This Court has in the case of Sterling Gelatin (supra) held that the provisions of Rule 6 of CCR are inapplicable if the dutiable final product could not have been manufactured using a lesser quantity of inputs and input services - Apex Court has, in the case of in the case of National Organic Chemical Industries Limited = 2008-TIOL-211-SC-CX held that if the dutiable final product could not have been manufactured using a lesser quantity of inputs, then the entire input must be attributed to having been used in the manufacture of the said dutiable final product, even if some other exempt final product emerges, inevitably - Thus, the issue whether the LPG is by-product or otherwise has become academic and need not required to be decide - Revenue Appeal fails and is dismissed: High Court [para 12, 15]

- Appeal dismissed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT