I-T - As mandated by newly inserted Sec 148A, re-assessment proceedings must necessarily be preceded by SCN : HC

I-T - If Department does not dispute that particlar question of law could also be gone into in pending appeals, there should be no impediment to appellate Tribunal to consider assessee's grounds regarding same: HC

I-T - While computing income from insurance business u/s 44 and First Schedule of the Act, profit/loss on sale/redemption of securities/investments are not taxable : ITAT

I-T - No addition can be made u/s 68, when assessee has discharged their onus and nothing adverse is found against them : ITAT

I-T - Assessment cannot be set aside u/s 263 by PCIT without conducting any enquiry/verification : ITAT

I-T- Co-operative society is entitled to claim deduction u/s 80P(2)(d): ITAT

2022-TIOL-504-ITAT-BANG

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether functional & Purpose of an expense is to be viewed from commercial angle and not from the factum of enduring benefit - Yes – ITAT Whether mere presence of perpetual license to use the software, disentitles an assessee to claim it as revenue expense - No- ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed/Revenu's appeal dismissed: BANGALORE ITAT

2022-TIOL-503-ITAT-MUM

Nagothane Vyapari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Vs Pr.CIT

Whether if AO has taken a plausible view, PCIT cannot be permitted to substitute his opinion in place of AO to arrive to contrary finding - YES : ITAT Whether co-operative society is entitled to claim deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of Act - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

2022-TIOL-502-ITAT-PUNE

DCIT Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company

Whether while computing income from insurance business u/s 44 and First Schedule of the Act, profit/loss on sale/redemption of securities/investments are taxable – NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: PUNE ITAT

2022-TIOL-722-HC-MP-IT

Yuvraj Vs ITO

Whether as mandated by the newly inserted Section 148A, re-assessment proceedings must necessarily be preceded by SCN - YES: HC

- Petition partly allowed: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-721-HC-KAR-IT

Palmer Investment Group Ltd Vs Dispute Resolution Panel

Whether when Department does not dispute that particlar question of law could also be gone into in pending appeals, there should be no impediment to appellate Tribunal to consider assessee's grounds regarding same - YES: HC

- Petition disposed of: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

VAT - 8 years' time taken by Revenue to consider assessee's objections to SCN received is inordinate; costs of Rs. 7500/- mulcted on Respondent-Revenue: HC

CX - Since the procedural lapse/defect stands already cured by appellant, it deems to be a fit case to be heard by Commissioner (Appeals) on its merit as procedural lapses shall not take away the substantial justice: CESTAT

Cus - Though the 'Multimedia Speakers' under consideration have additional features, the main and principal function of product is as a Speaker and therefore, goods in question are classifiable under CTH 8518 22 00 : CESTAT

2022-TIOL-720-HC-DEL-VAT

Anil Kumar And Company Vs CTT

Whether 8 years' time taken by the Revenue to consider the assessee's objections to SCN received under the Delhi VAT Act is inordinate delay - YES: HC

- Writ petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-422-CESTAT-DEL

Panacea Biotec Ltd Vs CCGST

CX - Admittedly, appellant had not filed the amount of pre-deposit at the time of filing his initial appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), against O-I-O - In view of section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944, Commissioner (Appeals) has committed no error while rejecting the appeal on the ground of non-compliance of aforesaid provision - Simultaneously, it is also apparent on record that appellant made compliance of said provision, subsequently - However, still the opportunity of being heard for disposing his appeal on merits was not considered by Commissioner (Appeals) - The letter as is found annexed on the record of this appeal shows that Commissioner (Appeals) has not re-considered the issue despite that non-compliance of Section 35F ibid was a procedural lapse and that the same has been made good by appellant - Law has been settled that procedural lapses shall not take away the substantial justice - Otherwise also it is the fundamental principle of natural justice that opportunity of hearing be provided to the aggrieved and disposal of a lis should always preferably be on merits - Since the procedural lapse/the defect stands already cured by appellant, it deems to be a fit case to be heard by Commissioner (Appeals) on its merit - Accordingly, matter is remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the merits of appeal for a fresh adjudication: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-421-CESTAT-ALL

Sun Facility Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.CCE & ST

ST - The appellant is in appeal against impugned order demanding service tax alongwith interest and various penalties on both the appellants - On examining of agreements, it is found that appellant has provided sanitation services and for that they had also raised invoice for providing sanitation services - On examination of SCN, it is found that in balance sheet, appellant has shown non-taxable service and taxable service separately and in ST-3 returns they have shown taxable services on which they have paid service tax - Demand of service tax is barred by limitation as services rendered by appellant were well known to Department in earlier proceedings, therefore, subsequent SCN cannot be issued by invoking extended period of limitation - As the cleaning service has been exempt from payment of service tax in terms of negative list to the Notification No. 25/2012-S.T., therefore, appellant is not liable to pay service tax on cleaning services - If the same is excluded from taxable service quantify by Adjudicating Authority on the basis of gross value of services shown by appellant in balance sheet, appellant has paid service tax for supply of the para-medical services i.e. manpower recruitment and supply agency service - In view of judicial pronouncement in appellant's own case for earlier period and following the decision of Tribunal in case of A.N. Kapoor (Janitors) Pvt. Ltd. 2021-TIOL-135-CESTAT-ALL , demand of service tax is not sustainable against appellant - Therefore, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

2022-TIOL-420-CESTAT-BANG

Logic India Trading Company Vs CCE

Cus - The appellant is engaged in import of electronic goods for sale to customers in India - They had filed three Bills of Entries for import of 'Multimedia Speakers" - The goods were self-assessed by appellant for clearance under Tariff Item 8518 22 00 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as "Multiple Loud Speakers mounted in same enclosure" - The Department rejected the said classification claimed by appellant and by relying upon Board Circular No. 27/2013, had re-classified the subject goods under Tariff Item 8519 81 00 ibid for Speakers with USB playback and Tariff Item 8527 91 00 ibid for Speakers with FM Radio feature - The issue with regard to classification of subject goods has already been settled by Tribunal in appellant's own case 2016-TIOL-1800-CESTAT-BANG , wherein the Tribunal was posed with classification of "Multimedia Speakers" of three types as imported by appellant, viz. Speakers without USB port or FM; Speakers with additional functions of USB playback and Speakers with FM Radio and USB playback - Upon analyzing the legal provisions, rules provided under the General Rules of Interpretation, common parlance theory, Tribunal has held that though the "Multimedia Speakers" under consideration have additional features, the main and principal function of the product is as a Speaker and therefore, the goods in question are classifiable under Tariff Item 8518 22 00 ibid - The issue of classification of "Multimedia Speakers" is no more res integra and as such, impugned order passed in changing the classification of disputed goods cannot be sustained: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT