I-T - Where amount of underreporting of income is consequent to increase in disallowance voluntarily estimated by assessee, such case is not fit for imposing penalty u/s 270A : HC

I-T - While quashing criminal proceedings, uncontroverted averments in complaint without any addition or subtraction should be looked into to examine whether offence can be made out or not: HC

I-T - If proceedings have not even been concluded by statutory authority, writ Court should not interfere at such pre-mature stage: HC

I-T - Assessee cannot claim extension of last date to seek payment of tax with late fee under Direct tax VsV Scheme, in absence of any such vested right: HC

I-T - If trust had filed Form-10 during course of assessment and before completion of assessment, then same should be considered by AO while considering claim of benefit u/s 11(2): ITAT

I-T - Once records are forming part of assessment records for earlier year, there is no need to call for remand report of AO at stage of CIT (A): ITAT

I-T - If deposits have been made out of book balances, there is no reason to estimate income there from: ITAT

2022-TIOL-820-HC-UKHAND-IT

Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority Vs Addl.CIT

Whether upon disollution of a body corporate established by a State Government, the income, assets & liabilities of the former will vest with the latter - YES: HC

- Appeals dismissed: UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-819-HC-DEL-IT

Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre

Whether where amount of underreporting of income is consequent to increase in disallowance voluntarily estimated by assessee, such case is not fit for imposing penalty u/s 270A - YES : HC

- Assessee's writ petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-818-HC-MAD-IT

S J Surya Vs DCIT

Whether Court can presume culpable mental state of accused, unless, accused shows that he had no such mental state with respect to act charged as offence in prosecution - YES: HC Whether while quashing criminal proceedings, uncontroverted averments in complaint without any addition or subtraction should be looked into to examine whether offence can be made out or not - YES: HC

- Assessee's petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-817-HC-P&H-IT

Krishana Goel Vs Pr.CCIT

Whether where proceedings have not even been concluded by statutory authority, writ Court should not interfere at such pre-mature stage - YES: HC Whether where correctness of order u/s 148A(d) is being challenged on factual premise contending that jurisdiction though vested has been wrongly exercised, no writ interference is warranted - YES: HC Whether writ interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of Constitution is warranted at intermediate stage, if proceedings initiated are yet to be concluded by statutory authority - NO: HC

- Assessee's petition dismissed: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-816-HC-P&H-IT

Amit Gupta Vs UoI

Whether assessee can claim extension of last date to seek payment of tax with late fee under Direct tax VsV Scheme, in absence of any such vested right - NO: HC

- Assessee's petition dismissed: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

PIL - Mining lease - Swindling &Siphoning of public money -What ultimately would be the fate of writ petition lies in the womb of morrow - Petitions cannot be thrown away on the ground of maintainability: HC

CX - When the issue was open to more than one interpretation, dispute raised by Department is debatable and subject to different interpretation, extended period of limitation is not available to Revenue: CESTAT

ST - Activity of transportation of coal from pit-heads to railway sidings would appropriately be classified under head 'transport of goods by road service' and does not involve any service in relation to 'mining of mineral' : CESTAT

CX - Since refund claim was allowed under Rule 9B of erstwhile rule and not under section 11B of Act, there was no case for interest on delayed refund as Rule 9 B contained no such provisions for interest: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-823-HC-JHARKHAND-MISC

Shiv Shankar Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand

PIL - Petitioner has sought for direction upon the Director, Directorate of Enforcement and the Assistant Director (PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement to investigate the fifteen FIRs in Khunti Police Station and one in Arki Police Station Case pertaining to involvement of Ram Binod Prasad Sinha and others registered under Sections 406, 409, 420, 423, 424, 465 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 11, 12(2) and 13(1)I of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; direction upon Director General, Income Tax (Investigation) to enquire into the money transferred of Soren Family in the name of respondent nos. 8 to 13, through SHELL Companies, as also to investigate the sources of income of private respondents and investigate the financial crime committed by respondent no. 6; direction sought to prosecute the Chief Minister-cum-Minister Department of Mines for misuse of office in getting the mining lease in his own name- Counsel appearing for the State has submitted that similar issue was earlier dismissed by this Court, which was affirmed by Supreme Court- Court, taking into consideration the order passed by Apex Court on 24 th May, 2022 is proceeding to hear the issue of preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of these two writ petitions i.e., W.P. (PIL) No. 4290 of 2021 and W.P. (PIL) No. 727of 2022-It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that be in g a citizen of the Country, he has drawn the attention on all these malpractices of s ip honing of public money through Shell Companies by filing due representation in this regard but no action, since having been taken, the instant writ petition has been filed-It is submitted that if the matter will be directed to be inquired by the Income Tax Department, the truth will come on surface about the modus operandi of the investment of money earned by the respondent no. 6 and his political advisor- It has been also stated that a thorough investigation is required to be conducted which is not possible by the district police since the high-ups in the political side as well as in the bureaucracy are at the helm of the affairs and as such it is a fit case where the investigation is required to be conducted by the special agency like Central Bureau of Investigation for the alleged swindling and siphoning of public money. 

Held: Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the Court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration- The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind- Some persons with vested interest indulge in the past time of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves- Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity- The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown at the threshold and, in appropriate cases, with exemplary costs-   Therefore, the Court has to be satisfied about the credentials of the applicant; the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and the information being not vague and indefinite-It is also settled that the requirement of -ocus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory; because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold- It is also evident that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration -There is no dispute about the settled position of law that procedure ought not be allowed to be given preference over genuine Public Interest Litigation on ground of technicalities- But certainly that principle will be applicable if the Court finds that the Public Interest Litigation is filed for mischievous consideration - Court, prima facie, is of the view that it will not be just and proper to go into technicality holding the writ petitions to be not maintainable rather for the ends of justice and public interest at large, these writ petitions would have to be held maintainable- Court is of the considered view that merely because the some of the requirement as per Rule 4, 4-B and 5 of the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 have not been followed, the instant writ petitions cannot be held to be not maintainable-The allegation cannot be said to be a farce- What ultimately would be the fate of the writ petition lies in the womb of morrow but how such petition could be thrown away at the threshold? - Courtis of the considered view that the issue of approaching this Court without exhausting the remedy available under Section 154, 154(3) and 156(3) of the Code or Criminal Procedure is not available in facts and circumstances of the present case reason being that in this case direction has been sought for investigation of siphoning of public money through independent agency, like CBI, ED and Income Tax Department and such orders cannot be passed under the aforesaid provisions- Issue pertaining to approaching this Court without exhausting the remedy available under the Code of Criminal Procedure is not worth to be considered and isaccordingly, rejected- This issue is answered against the concerned respondents-What we (Court) will do on merit lies in the womb of the morrow- On that count we (Court) cannot hold the writ petitions non-maintainable-Writ petitions cannot be thrown away on the ground of maintainability- Matters to be heard on merits on 10 th June, 2022: High Court [para 23, 30, 31, 35, 42, 49, 50, 51]

- Matters posted: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-491-CESTAT-DEL

Om Sai Ram Trading Vs CC

Cus - The issue involved is, whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the claim of interest on belated refunds, by referring to limitation under Section 128 of Customs Act, 1962 - The Commissioner (Appeals) has mis-conceived the issue of interest by rejecting the same by referring to provisions of Section 128 ibid - Appellant is entitled to interest from the end of three months from the date of refund application before the Adjudicating Authority, till the date of grant of refund in cash - Adjudicating Authority is directed to disburse the interest within a period of 45 days: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-490-CESTAT-DEL

Mirza Hasam Vs CC

ST - The issue involved is as to whether the appellant had provided 'cargo handling service' for period 01.04.2007 to 30.05.2007 and 'mining service' for period 01.06.2007 - The Commissioner has placed reliance upon definition of "mines" under Mines Act, 1952 and has observed that all processing including handling and movement of coal from one point of mines to dispatch point of mines are activities carried out in relation to mining of minerals - This issue was examined by Supreme Court in Singh Transporters wherein it is held that the activity would appropriately be classified under head "transport of goods by road service" and the activity does not involve any service in relation to "mining of mineral" as contemplated under section 65(105)(zzzy) of Finance Act, 1994 - The Supreme Court also held that the definition of "mines" has no apparent nexus with activity undertaken under service rendered - The Commissioner (Appeals) was, therefore, not justified in holding that appellant had undertaken activity of mining service w.e.f. 01.06.2007 - The impugned order therefore, cannot be sustained and is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-489-CESTAT-DEL

Annapurna Industries Vs CCGST

CX - The issue involved is, whether appellant have rightly taken cenvat credit of service tax paid on outward transportation service (GTA) used for removal of goods, whether the demand is hit by limitation - Appellant have maintained proper records of transactions and the fact of taking credit - They had also filed periodical returns regularly - SCN has been issued in September, 2019 disputing taking of cenvat credit on outward GTA for the period April, 2016 to March, 2017 - During course of argument, appellant have also filed copy of excise return in Form ER-1, wherein they have reflected cenvat credit taken in relevant columns alongwith other details as required - Thus, no case of suppression, mis-representation or fraud is made out - Further, the Tribunals, High Courts and even the Supreme Court have taken divergent views on subject of allowability of credit on outward GTA - Finally, CBIC has issued a circular in year, 2018 mentioning four rulings of Supreme Court wherein divergent views have been taken and thereafter have given instruction to the Field Officer to take a pragmatic view in the matter of allowability of outward GTA - Thus, evidently the issue was open to more than one interpretation and thus the dispute raised by Department is debatable and subject to different interpretation - Extended period of limitation is not available to Revenue - Accordingly, SCN is hit by limitation - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-488-CESTAT-AHM

India Gelatine And Chemicals Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Interest on refund - Appeal of appellant was rejected by Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the refund claim was allowed under Rule 9B of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and not under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 and therefore there was no case for interest on delayed refund since Rule 9B ibid contained no such provisions for interest - There is no finalization of Provisional assessment and there is no challenge to any such assessment, in these circumstances refund would not be governed by provisions of Rule 9B ibid - Appellant has claimed that lower authorities have examined the refund in terms of Section 11B ibid inasmuch as they had examined that there was unjust enrichment as well as limitation - Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has rightly stated that the test for unjust enrichment was done in terms of direction of Tribunal's order - Proceedings arising out of filing of refund claim culminated with presumed finalization of provisional assessment as concluded in the order of Deputy Commissioner while granting part of refund claim - Thereafter, appellant instead of challenging the said O-I-O filed a fresh claim for refund of interest - Another SCN was issued wherein it was held that the refund arising on account of finalization of provisional assessment under Rule 9B ibid are not governed by provisions of section 11B ibid - In this regard observation of jurisdictional High Court in case of Contemporary Packaging Technologies P Ltd. also becomes relevant wherein it is categorically observed that the provisions of Section 11B ibid would not govern the grant of refund claims arising on account of finalization of provisional assessment under Rule 9B ibid - No merit found in the appeal, same is dismissed: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT