I-T - Action of Pr. CIT cannot be faulted per se, simply because assessee may possibly explain its stance with factual corroboration in proceedings before AO arising from revisional proceedings u/s 263: ITAT

I-T- Gain resulting from agricultural land was not liable to be considered as income u/s 45 : ITAT

I-T - Any income in current account need not be assessed as undisclosed income, once genuineness of claims was found to be true after verification: ITAT

I-T - Debatable issue clearly falls beyond ambit of expression 'mistake apparent from record', and hence rectification order passed u/s 154 under such circumstances merits to be set aside: ITAT

I-T - No ad hoc additions can be made u/s 36(1)(iii), without evidencing that interest-bearing funds were actually utilised for purpose of advancing funds on which no interest was charged by assessee: ITAT

2022-TIOL-628-ITAT-MUM

State Bank Of India Vs ACIT

Whether interest u/s 234D shall be chargeable from date of grant of refund - YES: ITAT

Whether debatable issue clearly falls beyond ambit of expression 'mistake apparent from record', and hence rectification order passed u/s 154 under such circumstances merits to be set aside - YES: ITAT

2022-TIOL-627-ITAT-MUM

HSBC Asset Management India Pvt Ltd Vs ITO

Whether AO has power to re-assess only and no power to review his own order - YES: ITAT Whether reopening is not permissible on basis of change of opinion or borrowed belief - YES: ITAT

Whether Audit party performs essentially administrative or executives functions and cannot be attributed powers of judicial supervision over quasi judicial acts of Income tax Authorities - YES: ITAT

2022-TIOL-626-ITAT-MUM

DCIT Vs Macrotech Developer Ltd

Whether assessee's claim for deduction of sales promotion and advertisement can be allowed as revenue expenditure as these costs are no to be considered as a part of project cost/WIP cost - YES : ITAT

Whether in order to claim benefit of Section 54EC, investment must be made within six month from the transfer of the capital asset - YES: ITAT

2022-TIOL-625-ITAT-MUM

Mitchell Associates Vs ITO

Whether in order to claim benefit of Section 54EC, investment must be made within six month from the transfer of the capital asset - YES: ITAT

2022-TIOL-624-ITAT-MUM

DCIT Vs Skm Fabrics (Amana) Ltd

Whether adhoc additions can be made u/s 36(1)(iii), without evidencing that interest-bearing funds were actually utilised for purpose of advancing funds on which no interest was charged by assessee - NO: ITAT

CX - The place of removal in case of delivery of goods on FOR basis is the door step of consumer, accordingly, services for outward freight gets covered under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 and are eligible for Cenvat credit: CESTAT

CX - Appellant fails to prove that job work goods had been sent to factory of Shri Mohan Lal Barfa itself to be used in manufacture of such specified goods as are exempted from whole duty of excise leviable thereon under Notification No. 8/2003 : CESTAT

ST - The activities rendered by appellant in nature of camp mobilisation and demobilisation would not amount to Survey and Exploration of Mineral as alleged in SCN, demand cannot sustain: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-518-CESTAT-DEL

Pensol Industries Ltd Vs CCE, C & CGST

CX - Appellant is engaged in manufacture of Lubricating Oil, Anti-freezing oil and heavy duty break oil - During audit, it was observed that appellant has wrongly availed Cenvat credit of service tax on outward goods transport service which was performed beyond place of removal - A SCN was served upon appellant proposing a demand for recovery of Cenvat credit along with appropriate interest and proportionate penalties - Delivery of goods from manufacturer's/appellant's premises is on FOR basis - The copy of insurance policy is sufficient to hold that till the goods are delivered by manufacturer to its customers place, the title therein remains vested with manufacturer/the appellant - The same fact has been certified as correct even by Statutory Auditors of appellant in form of Chartered Accountants Certificate - There is no document on record produced by department to falsify both these documents - In appellant's own case, this Tribunal has already held the outward freight in case of sale on FOR basis to be an amount paid towards an eligible import service - The appellant has already been held to be entitled for availment of Cenvat Credit there upon - Commissioner (Appeals) has committed an error while completely ignoring department's own circular to this effect - The order under challenge is set aside: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-517-CESTAT-DEL

Mark Metal Company Vs CCE & CGST

CX - The appellant is engaged in manufacture of lead oxide (lead powder) lead ingots and plastic ghamela - Searches were conducted at the factory premises of appellant - Various incriminating documents were recovered and seized - A SCN was served upon appellant proposing recovery of an amount along with interest and penalty - Appellant has mentioned that he as job worker had resent the job work goods to factory of Shri Mohan Lal Barfa itself, but the perusal of record shows that Commissioner (Appeals) has based his findings on the basis of statements recorded at the stage of investigation - No infirmity found in conclusion arrived at by Commissioner (Appeals) that Shri Mohan Lal Barfa had sent scrap to appellant and received back lead powder manufactured on job work basis which has been sold to his brother Shri Laxman Barfa and other traders - Appellant could not produce any such documents which may prove that job work goods had been sent to factory of Shri Mohan Lal Barfa itself to be used in or in relation to manufacture of such specified goods as are exempted from whole duty of excise leviable thereon under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. - Coming to the issue of inclusion of extended period of limitation, appellant was entitled to SSI exemption only in terms of Notification Nos. 8/2003-CE and 83/94-C.E. - It has already been observed that substantial condition of said exemption notification has not been duly complied with by appellant - Absence thereof is opined to be correctly held as suppression on the part of appellant to invoke extended period of limitation - Impugned order is upheld: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-516-CESTAT-MAD

E - Factor Adventure Tourism Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - The appellant imported two used motor boats describing the same as "Excursion Boats" and filed Bill of Entry and classified the same under Tariff Item 8901 10 30 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and have availed exemption in terms of Sl. No. 551 of Notification No. 50/2017–Cus - The department sought to classify the goods under Tariff Item 8903 92 00 ibid and provisional assessment was ordered to be finalized - The boat is used for tourism purposes - Government of Andhra Pradesh have issued a provisional certificate of registration to the boats imported by appellants wherein it was certified that the boats are imported by appellants for purpose of creating excursions and itineraries in Vizag to facilitate development of promotion of tourism in adventure - It is not open for department to consider the boats to be pleasure yachts to be used by a person or group of persons - The excursion boats are classifiable under 8901 - Therefore, the classification arrived at by Revenue cannot be sustained - Impugned order argues that boats or vessel are not registered with MMD - In response to an application made by appellants MMD inform that in terms of Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, the boats cannot be registered as they are more than 20-25 years old and are of less than 20 tonnage and as the area of operation is in Vizag, MMD Chennai cannot register them and they are to be registered locally only - As submitted by appellant, there is no report given by MMD that the impugned boats are yachts - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-515-CESTAT-MAD

AP Enterprises Vs CCE & ST

ST - The issue to be decided is, whether the activities rendered by appellant in nature of camp mobilisation and demobilisation, camp establishment and maintenance, such as; preparation of camp ground, construction of sheds, bathrooms, toilets, bunk houses jacking up and electrical wiring and fitting fall within the definition of 'Survey and Exploration of Mineral' services or not - The Tribunal in case of M/s. Mohabir Enterprises 2019-TIOL-2165-CESTAT-MAD , which is a sister concern of appellant, for the period from January 2008 to December 2008, has analysed the issue and held that the activities do not fall under said category of service - The demand cannot sustain - I mpugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed : CHENNAI CESTAT