I-T - Penalty notice is invalid where relevant charge against assessee between concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, has not been specified: ITAT

I-T - If charitable trust had furnished relevant documents evidencing donations made eligible for deduction u/s 80GGA/80G, then disallowance of such claim resulting from computational error merits rectification u/s 154: ITAT

I-T - Employer would be eligible for claiming deduction in respect of delayed payment of PF of employees contribution, if paid before due date of filing return: ITAT

I-T - Following order passed by Tribunal, in assessee's own case on identical issue, assessee need not capitalized entire finance cost : ITAT

I-T - Disallowance u/s 14A cannot be more than exempt income earned by Assessee during assessment year in question: ITAT

I-T - When assessment u/s 143(3) was framed, then reopening has to be made in terms of stipulation of 1st Proviso to section 147: ITAT

I-T- Reopening of assessment with incorrect reasons is bad in law : ITAT

2022-TIOL-644-ITAT-MUM

ACIT Vs Rakhi Properties And Leasing Pvt Ltd

Whether reopening of assessment with incorrect reasons is bad in law - YES : ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

2022-TIOL-643-ITAT-MUM

PMGS India Pvt Ltd Vs ITO

Whether employer would be eligible for claiming deduction in respect of delayed payment of PF of employees contribution, if paid before due date of filing return of income - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

2022-TIOL-642-ITAT-MUM

Mosaic Landmarks LLP Vs DCIT

Whether in absence of contrary proved by Revenue and following order passed by Mumbai Tribunal, in assessee's own case on identical issue for AY 2013-14, assessee need not capitalized entire finance cost - YES : ITAT

Assessee's appeal allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

2022-TIOL-641-ITAT-MUM

Hinduja Finance Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether disallowance u/s 14A cannot be more than exempt income earned by Assessee during assessment year in question - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

2022-TIOL-640-ITAT-MUM

Bhoopati Shikshan Pratisthan Vs DCIT

Whether when assessee (charitable trust) had furnished relevant documents evidencing donations made eligible for deduction u/s 80GGA/80G, then disallowance of such claim resulting from computational error merits rectification u/s 154 - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

ST - Tax paid twice on same supplies, once as Service Tax and as GST - Refund to be given with interest - cannot be denied on technicalities: HC

Cus - Delay in granting refund of SAD - Whether interest is payable u/s 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 - Matter remanded - AA to await apex court decision in CMS Info System Limited: HC

Cus - Goods lying in the custody of department have, as per importer, become obsolete - No order need to be passed w.r.t release of goods except directing department to complete adjudication proceedings: HC

CX - Since appellant not only paid 7.5%/10% but the entire duty therefore, in terms of Section 35F r/w Board Circular 984/8/2014-CX., revenue should not have recovered the amount of penalty and interest by way of appropriation from sanctioned rebate claim: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-864-HC-KAR-ST

TPI Advisory Services India Pvt Ltd Vs CCT

ST - Substantial question of law is whether Tribunal is justified in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant thereby upholding rejection of refund claim of the service tax paid by the Appellant despite the fact that they had also paid Goods and Service Tax (GST) on the very same transaction - Facts are that the appellant had raised four Invoices dated 17.04.2017, 16.06.2017 and 30.06.2017 for the period from April to June, 2017 for payment of Service Tax of Rs. 17,84,952/- against WNS Global Services Private Limited, Tech Mahindra, USA & Morgan Stanley Advantage Services Pvt. Ltd. - Clients in whose names the Invoices were raised had expressed reservation to make the payment in view of the transition from service tax to GST, therefore, appellant issued credit notes to those customers and raised fresh Invoices under the provisions of GST, on 30.09.2017, 08.11.2017 and 31.12.2017 for a sum of Rs. 21,41,944/- and paid the said amount - Refund was, thereafter, filed of the service tax of Rs.17,84,952/- paid earlier and which was rejected by the lower authorities and Tribunal, therefore, the present appeal.

Held : In view of the undisputed facts that the appellant has paid the service tax and also the GST and the Commissioner of Central Excise has held that appellant was not liable to pay GST, rejection of applications for refund is untenable - Having paid the service tax in the year 2017 and having submitted its application, the appellant is awaiting the refund from March 2018 till date - Appeal is allowed - Respondents are directed to refund Rs. 17,84,952/- with statutory interest payable under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 within three months: High Court [para 11, 12]

- Appeal allowed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-863-HC-MAD-CUS

CC Vs CMS Info Systems Ltd

Cus - Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., dated 14.09.2007 - Revenue filed an appeal before the CESTAT contending that the grant of interest on the belated refund of SAD is illegal - Tribunal rejected the appeal by noting that the said issue is covered by the decision of the Delhi High Court in M/s. Riso India Limited [ 2015-TIOL-2384-HC-DEL-CUS ] and there is no contrary decision of any other High Court - Aggrieved over the same, the appellant/ revenue is in appeal - Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law viz. Whether the Tribunal is correct in granting interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962, when the refund of special additional duty is consequent to exemption granted under section 25(1) ibid and it is a special extension granted to the importers under the relevant Notifications and therefore, the refund is granted by virtue of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., dated 14.09.2007 and it is not a refund under Section 27 ibid and therefore, Section 27A ibid is not applicable to the facts of the case.

Held: Court, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, sets aside the orders-in-appeals passed by the Appellate Authorities and remands the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration of the application for refund in respect of two Bills of Entry dated 05.11.2013 and 29.10.2013, after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, based on the outcome of the SLP filed against the order passed by the Bombay High Court in CMS Info System Limited [2017-TIOL-79-HC-MUM-CUS ], to be rendered by the Supreme Court - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of: High Court [para 9, 10]

- Appeal disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-862-HC-MAD-CUS

CC Vs A S Enterprises

Cus - Import of LED spare parts for lighting fixtures, spare parts for lighting fixtures and capacitor for lighting fixtures - Revenue has filed an intra-court appeal assailing the order passed by the Single Judge of allowing the writ petition and directing to the appellant to release the imported goods within a weeks' time in terms of Section 110(2) of Customs Act, 1962 on the premise that no action was initiated by way of issuance of show cause notice under section 124(a) ibid, within six months or extended period stipulated under section 110(2) ibid and hence, the person from whose possession the goods were seized, becomes entitled to their return - Respondent submitted that the subject goods lying in the custody of the Department, which are perishable in nature, have now, become obsolete and, therefore, the same are of negligible value.

Held: Court is of the opinion that no further orders need be passed with respect to release of the subject goods at this stage, except directing the appellants to complete the adjudication proceedings, if not completed earlier, and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible - Writ appeal stands disposed of: High Court [para 7, 8]

- Appeal disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-524-CESTAT-AHM

Bayer Vapi Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The issue involved is, whether the revenue is correct in appropriating the demand of Rs. 4,50,572/- towards penalty and interest corresponding to a confirmed demand from sanctioned rebate claim during the period the demand case was pending before Tribunal - Sanctioning authority appropriated the demand of Rs. 4,50,572/- from the sanctioned rebate claim, said appropriated amount is towards penalty and interest in a demand case whereas, appellant had deposited the entire duty amount - For filing appeal, there is a requirement of mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5% or 10% as the case may be in terms of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Regarding recovery of dues when appeal is pending, the Board has issued a Circular No. 984/8/2014-CX - Appellant not only paid 7.5%/10% but the entire duty therefore, in terms of Section 35F ibid read with Board Circular No. 984/8/2014-CX ., revenue should not have recovered the amount of penalty and interest by way of appropriation from sanctioned rebate claim - Appellant's demand case got settled under 'SVLDRS-2019', for this reason also, no amount shall be allowed to be appropriated - Accordingly, impugned order is not sustainable and the same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT