I-T - Calcutta High Court sets aside ex-parte order and expunges adverse observation made against counsel for assessee and imposition of cost : HC

I-T - Assessment order passed hastily without giving any thought to response furnished by assessee merits being set aside : HC

I-T - Merely because Revenue classifies facts already on record as 'information', does not vest it with power to issue re-assessment notice u/s 148 post order u/s 148A(d): HC

I-T - Exclusion of 'other income' in only one leg of computing net income and effective rate of tax in Ghana is not the right approach: ITAT

I-T - Power of revision is rightly exercised where AO passes assessment order accepting assessee's contentions, but without considering the basic details of the case: ITAT

I-T – Where information is factual and not false and is merely communicated to AO, AO is empowered to invoke provisions u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 : ITAT

I-T - Once assessee has shown low NP rate in comparison to immediately preceding assessment year which raises situation of leakage of revenue, such case calls for addition on basis of sales/turnover ratio: ITAT

2022-TIOL-553-ITAT-DEL

Arun Jain Vs ITO

Whether where assessee has shown low NP rate in comparison to immediately preceding assessment year which raises situation of leakage of revenue, such case calls for addition on basis of sales/turnover ratio - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: DELHI ITAT

2022-TIOL-552-ITAT-DEL

Aleo Manali Hydro Power Pvt Ltd Vs ITO

Whether order passed u/s 201(1)/201(1A) barred by limitation period, could not be sustained - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT

2022-TIOL-773-HC-KOL-IT

Srei Equipment Finance Ltd Vs Addl./Joint/Deputy/ACIT

Whether ex-parte assessment order passed without considering request made by assessee for personal hearing and conducting proceedings by way of exchange of chat messages, merits to be quashed - YES: HC

- Matter remanded: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-772-HC-KOL-IT

R N Fashion Vs UoI

Whether assessment order passed hastily without giving any thought to the response furnished by the assessee merits being set aside - YES: HC

- Appeal allowed: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-771-HC-DEL-IT

Divya Capital One Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether merely because the Revenue classifies a fact already on record as "information", does not vest it with the power to issue a re-assessment notice u/s 148 post an order u/s 148A(d) - YES: HC

Whether term 'information' in Explanation 1 to Section 148 cannot be lightly resorted to so as to reopen the assessment and it cannot be a ground to unbridled power to the Revenue - YES: HC

Whether order u/s 148A(d) passed in a haste and in gross violation of principle of natural justice in absence of sufficient time provided to Assessee for filing response, merits to be quashed - YES: HC

- Matter remanded: DELHI HIGH COURT

CX - Merely because the assessee have not followed provisional assessment, refund cannot be denied as Revenue cannot retain any amount which is not due as per law: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-466-CESTAT-KOL

CC Vs Sonu Jal

Cus - The issue that requires consideration is, whether the Adjudicating Authority was correct in holding that sufficient evidence was not produced by Department to justify upholding of confiscation of gold recovered from assessee and whether penalties on various appellants are imposable - The seizure was not in Customs area but was on a train at Tatanagar - The intercepted person was brought to DRI office in Patna and seizure and other proceedings have taken place in Patna - It was incumbent upon Department to prove that impugned gold is of foreign origin and that too a smuggled one - Therefore, the only semblance of evidence available with Department is retracted statement of assessee and conjectures based cell tower location and toll plaza records - Adjudicating Authority came to the conclusion that the statement of assessee cannot be relied upon in view of absence of cogent corroborative evidence - It has been since placed on record that assessee is no more and he passed away on 18.10.2020 as per the death certificate - Under the circumstances, findings of Adjudicating Authority are legal and proper and as such impugned order does not require to be interfered with - Thus, no merit found in appeals filed by Department and the same are not maintainable: CESTAT

- Appeals dismissed: KOLKATA CESTAT

2022-TIOL-465-CESTAT-DEL

Punjab National Bank Vs CCGST

ST - Refund - There is no controversy regarding quantum of amount refundable - Further, there is no allegation nor any finding by Court below with regard to unjust enrichment - There is no scope to transfer any service tax liability as credit has been taken after appointed day and also filing of Form TRAN-1 - No time-limit is prescribed under the transition provision of Section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act, for claim and grant of refund - Accordingly, appellant is entitled to refund of said amount - The Adjudicating Authority is directed to disburse the refund within a period of sixty days alongwith interest under Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944 : CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-464-CESTAT-AHM

Anchor Electricals Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Assessee have paid duty on higher price when cleared the goods from their factory to depot and subsequently the goods were sold at lower transaction value - Therefore, differential duty paid in excess arose for which the appellant have filed refund claim - Both the lower authorities rejected the refund claim only on the ground that assessee have not opted for provisional assessment - However, there is no dispute on the fact that assessee have paid duty in excess as per Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rules made thereunder - Merely because the assessee have not followed provisional assessment, refund cannot be denied as Revenue cannot retain any amount which is not due as per law - Accordingly, impugned order is set-aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT