I-T - Income chargeable to tax that has been under-assessed would fall under the deemed cases, where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment : HC.

I-T- Auction conducted by Income Tax Department is not irregular as there exists liabilities of assessee which third respondent has undertaken to discharge : HC

I-T - Notice u/s 148 issued upon deceased is void ab initio : HC

I-T- Transfer order u/s 127(2) is without jurisdiction if such order is not supported by reasons : HC

I-T - No addition u/s 69 can be made if two conditions are not satisfied: there must be some investment and assessee is short of explanation: ITAT

I-T - When nature and source of old currency notes is fully supported and substantiated, no addition u/s 68 can be made: ITAT

I-T - AO must pass penalty order either before end of FY in which proceedings, during course of which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, are completed or before 6 months from end of month in which order of CIT(A)/Tribunal is passed; whichever is later: ITAT

2022-TIOL-693-HC-MAD-IT

SL Lumax Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether income chargeable to tax that has been under-assessed would fall under the deemed cases, where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment – YES: HC

- Assessee's Writ Petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-692-HC-MAD-IT

IGGI Resorts International Ltd Vs Tax Recovery Officer

Whether auction conducted by Income Tax Department is not irregular as there exists liabilities of assessee which third respondent has undertaken to discharge - YES : HC

- Assessee's writ petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-691-HC-AHM-IT

Krishnaawtar Kabra Vs ITO

Whether notice u/s 148 issued upon deceased is void ab initio and consequential proceedings and orders passed are without jurisdiction - YES : HC

- Assessee's writ application allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-690-HC-AHM-IT

Nagindas Kasturchand and Bros Vs Pr.CIT

Whether transfer order u/s 127(2) and all consequential proceedings pursuant thereto are without jurisdiction if such order is not supported by reasons, which are not absurd or arbitrary - YES : HC

- Assessee's writ application allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-689-HC-RAJ-IT

Pr.CIT Vs Samarpan Synthetics Pvt Ltd

On appeal, the High Court observes that the issue at hand is entirely factual in nature and that the findings recorded by the CIT(A) and the ITAT are factually sound. Hence the Court finds no question of law warranting its intervention.

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

CX - A direction should be issued for manual processing of petitioner's application under SVLDR Scheme as petitioner clearly made an attempt to remit 'amount declared' before the deadline: HC

VAT - Where SCN is sent to assessee through ordinary post, it cannot be presumed that it would have automatically been served on the assessee : HC

ST - Since the delay has been cogently explained by assessee in filing their appeal before Commissioner (A), delay condoned and appeal is allowed by way of remand: CESTAT

ST - The incentive received by appellant for using Centralized Reservation System Developer is not subject to levy of service tax: CESTAT

Cus - Refund claim of appellant was rejected on the ground that there is no excess payment and that the duty liability arose on account of non-fulfillment of conditions of the license: CESTAT

CX - Appellant is eligible to claim Cenvat credit on capital goods used for purpose of carrying out intermediate production process on goods supplied by principal and removed without payment of excise duty: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-687-HC-MAD-VAT

Chennai Marine Offshore and Industrial Supply Company Vs State Tax Officer

Whether where SCN is sent to assessee through ordinary post, it cannot be presumed that it would have automatically been served on the assessee - YES: HC

- Writ petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-686-HC-KERALA-VAT

Shell India Markets Pvt Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner (Assessment)

In writ, the High Court observes that if any refund is due to the assessee, the same is liable to be processed and disbursed without further delay. The Revenue authority concerned is directed to consider the application as expeditiously as possible. Interest shall also accrue in accordance with law.

- Writ petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-688-HC-DEL-CX

SDB Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs Ministry of Finance CBEC

CX - The issue arises is, whether this Court should direct revenue to manually process the application filed by petitioner under SVLDR Scheme, 2019 - The petitioner clearly made an attempt to remit "amount declared" before deadline i.e., 30.06.2020 - The amount that was sought to be remitted was, in fact, more than that was indicated in Icegate Challan - Furthermore, discrepancy in remittance was only a few odd paise - Thus, a direction needs to be issued to Designated Committee or any other appropriate authority appointed for processing petitioner's application under the Scheme, manually: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-405-CESTAT-DEL

Yuvraj Singh Vs CCE & CGST

ST - Assessee is in a ppeal against impugned order whereby Commissioner (A) have dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation - The delay has been cogently explained by assessee in filing their appeal before Commissioner (A) - Accordingly, in the interest of justice, delay in filing appeal before Commissioner (A) is condoned, and appeal is allowed by way of remand to Commissioner (A), to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the assessee and giving opportunity of making his pleading and filing evidence in support of their contentions - This Appeal is allowed subject to payment of cost Rs. 10,000/- in PM Cares Fund: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-404-CESTAT-MAD

Asveen Air Travels Pvt Ltd Vs CGST & CE

ST - The appellant is engaged in providing service under category of 'Air Travel Agency Service' and are paying service tax on commission received from airlines - During investigation conducted by Service Tax Department, it was found that appellant had received incentives / commission from CRS Developers for booking of tickets through computerized reservation booking system offered by said companies - Department was of the view that said incentive received is subject to service tax under category of 'business auxiliary service' - The Larger Bench in case of Kafila Hospitality and Travels Pvt. Ltd. 2021-TIOL-159-DEL-LB has held that said incentive is not subject to levy of service tax - Following the said decision, demand cannot sustain and is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-403-CESTAT-MAD

Aurobindo Pharma Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Appellant had imported certain goods under Advance Authorization Scheme vide various licenses - As the Advance Authorization expired, appellants were unable to fulfill their export obligation as stipulated in these licenses - They have paid appropriate duty and interest on quantity of inputs which were not used in manufacture of finished products for exports - The duty was paid manually vide TR6 challan - As the differential duty comprised a portion of IGST also, appellant had filed refund claim for the reason that there is no provision to avail credit of IGST which is paid through TR6 challan - Same was rejected on the ground that there is no excess payment and that the duty liability arose on account of non-fulfillment of conditions of the license - It has to be noted that duty was paid as appellants were not able to fulfill export obligation as per Advance Authorization license - It then becomes clear that inputs have not been used in manufacture of final products for export - Tribunal do not find any reasons to take a different view from the decision of Tribunal in case of Servo Packaging Ltd. 2020-TIOL-664-CESTAT-MAD wherein it is held that the refund is not eligible - The impugned order does not call for any interference: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-402-CESTAT-KOL

Amul Crank Case Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

CX - The issue to be decided is, whether the appellant is eligible to claim Cenvat credit on capital goods used for purpose of carrying out intermediate production process on goods supplied by M/s. Tata Motors Limited and removed without payment of excise duty under procedure prescribed under Notfn 214/86 - Issue is no longer res integra and has been decided by Madras High Court in case of KYUNGSHIN INDUSTRIAL MOTHERSON LTD. 2016-TIOL-1003-HC-MAD-CX wherein it was held that wiring harness was removed without payment of duty under job work procedure to the principal manufacturer and that semi-finished goods removed by the job worker from its unit to the principal, without payment of duty, would not come within the scope of expression "exempted final product" used in Rule 57R(1) equivalent to Rule 6(4) of CCR, 2004 - Therefore by following said judgment, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT