I-T - Provisions of Sec 14A inapplicable on profits from shares where shares were held as stock-in-trade and not as investment particularly by banks : HC

I-T - Writ court's intervention against penalty order is unwarranted, where it is result of search & seizure operations which led to conclusion of assessee having indulged in tax evasion: HC

I-T - Penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) must necessarily be based on satisfaction based on certain material evidence going to establish that assessee concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income: HC

I-T - Acceptance of referral fee by medical practitioner is forbidden by enforceable code of conduct and assessee company can not claim tax deduction in respect of such expenditure : ITAT

I-T - AO lacks jurisdiction to enter jurisdiction u/s 153C in absence of any incriminating material found in course of search that has bearing on determination of total income of assessee: ITAT

I-T- Since interest income is to be subjected to tax as income from other sources u/s 56, provisions of Sec 57 will govern allowability of expenses :ITAT

I-T - Since annual value determined by Revenue is devoid of any rational endorsement, addition made for rental income can be deleted : ITAT

I-T - Interest paid for extra commercial considerations cannot be allowed as deduction u/s 80IB: ITAT

2022-TIOL-888-HC-DEL-IT

Pr.CIT Vs Punjab National Bank

Whether provisions of Section 14A will apply on profits from shares where shares were held as stock-in-trade and not as investment particularly by banks - NO: HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-887-HC-MP-IT

Ravi Shankar Singh Vs DCIT

Whether writ court's intervention against a penalty order is warranted, where such order is result of search & seizure operations which led to conclusion of assessee having indulged in tax evasion - NO: HC

- Writ petitions dismissed: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-886-HC-RAJ-IT

Pr.CIT Vs Kishangarh Hi-Tech Textile Park Ltd

Whether penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) must necessarily be based on satisfaction based on certain material evidence going to establish that assessee concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income - YES: HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-652-ITAT-MUM

Stemade Biotech Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether acceptance of referral fee by medical practitioner is forbidden by enforceable code of conduct and assessee company can not claim tax deduction in respect of such expenditure - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

2022-TIOL-651-ITAT-MUM

Kiritkumar Dharsibhai Suba Vs DCIT

Whether AO lacks jurisdiction to enter jurisdiction u/s 153C in absence of any incriminating material found in course of search that has bearing on determination of total income of assessee - YES: ITAT Whether additions made without providing an opportunity to assessee to cross examine those persons whose statements has been relied upon by AO, amounts to gross violation of natural justice - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

Cus - Fact that petitioners, Sri Lankan nationals, also purchased 112 bottles liquor beyond permissible limits and attempted to walk through green channel without declaration shows that their visit was not purely pilgrimage: HC

ST - Matter ought to have been properly examined by Designated Committee as unnecessarily the assessee is being denied the right to settle dispute under SVLDRS: HC

Cus - Challenge of O-in-O - Petitioner has an alternate remedy, therefore, writ petition is dismissed: HC

GST - Seized goods can be released subject to satisfaction of conditions set out under clauses (a) to (c) of s.129(1) - Challenge to notices fail: HC

GST - Composite supply of works contract provided to UPRNN, a Government Entity, by way of construction of Residential Quarters meant for use of employees of ESIC is chargeable to tax @18%: AAR

GST - Applicant has failed to furnish the substantiating documents as required by the Authority and, therefore, no ruling is extended on the question sought: AAR

ST - Since the amount in question was deposited under mistake of law, hence, was a deposit instead of being duty, section 11 B of CEA, 1944 and time bar therein cannot be applied: CESTAT

ST - Appellant and service recipient are two distinct person, hence, the service provided by appellant to M/s. Celtic Cross Holding Inc. USA clearly falls under export of service: CESTAT

Cus - The explanation on ground of illness, given by assessee is held to be absolutely vague as they could not substantiate with any medical record, possibility of appeal filed before Commissioner (A) to be an afterthought and a time gaining strategy cannot be ruled out: CESTAT

CX - Since documentary evidence is available on record and there are various statements which the appellant claims have been obtained under duress, reliance on said statements cannot be placed in absence of same being tested under Section 9D of CEA, 1944: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-882-HC-MAD-GST

Haroff Steel Traders Vs State Tax Officer

GST - Respondents claim to have found various discrepancies in the shipment of the goods and the documents accompanying the consignments - Orders of detention have been passed proposing penalty for the non-compliances noted therein - Petition is as regards the release of the goods on a provisional basis and subject to statutory conditions. Held:  The statutory provision envisages detention and seizure, if the goods in question are found to have been conveyed in contravention of the provisions of the Act or Rules - Post such detention or seizure, the seized goods 'shall' be released subject to satisfaction of the conditions set out under clauses (a) to (c) of Section 129(1) of the Act -  Clauses (a) and (b) deal with the quantification of the penalty, clause (a) in the case of voluntary payment by the assessee and clause (b) in cases where the assessee does not come forward to remit the penalty - In either case, the remittance of the penalty is to be by way of security equivalent to the amount payable under clauses (a) or (b), furnished in the prescribed manner -  Petitioners are directed to furnish bank guarantees for the amounts quantified in terms of the impugned notices dated 01.06.2022, in proper form, upon receipt of which, the goods shall be released forthwith by the Officer - Challenge to the notices fails - Petitions are disposed of: High Court 

- Petitions disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-74-AAR-GST

KPC Projects Ltd

GST - Work awarded to the applicant is by Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. (UPRNN) for construction of 228 staff quarters for ESIC – Applicant seeks a ruling as to whether they are eligible to avail the concessional rate of GST at 12% as prescribed in of S. No. 3 (vi) of the Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) and if not then what is the classification and rate of GST to be charged by the applicant. Held : In the instant case there is Composite supply of works contract provided to UPRNN, a Government Entity, by way of construction of Residential Quarters meant for the use of the employees of ESIC and, therefore, it can be said that the supply is in respect of a 'civil structure or any other original works meant predominantly for use other than for commerce, industry or any other business or profession' - Notification No 11/2017 has been further amended by Notification No. 15/2021-CTR dated 18.11.2021 (with effect from 01.01.2022) and in Sr. No 3, in column (3), in the heading "Description of Services", in item (vi), for the words "Union territory, a local authority, a Governmental Authority or a Government Entity" the words "Union territory or a local authority" have been substituted and that means the words "or a Governmental authority or a Government Entity" are omitted - Therefore, with effect from 01.01.2022, the impugned services [Heading 9954 (Construction services)] supplied by the applicant will not be covered under Sr. No. 3 (vi) of Notification No. 11/2021 - CTR dated 28.06.2017 as amended from time to time - Since the impugned service is expected to commence only at a future date, in view of the amended Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, the impugned activity is not classifiable under Sr. No. 3 (vi) and the said activity will be covered under the residuary clause (xii) of Sr. No. 3 of Notification No. 11/2017-CTR and the rate of GST to be paid by the applicant will be 18% of the taxable value: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2022-TIOL-73-AAR-GST

Best Money Gold Jewellery Ltd

GST - Applicant has sought a ruling on the following question - In case the applicant has purchased used/second hand gold jewellery or ornaments from persons who are not registered under GST and that at the time of sale of such goods there is no change in the form/nature of such goods and ITC will also not be availed on such purchase, if so, whether GST is to be paid only on the difference between the selling price and purchase price as stipulated under Rule 32(5) of CGST Rules, 2017. Held : Applicant was specifically asked to furnish 'write-up on the process undertaken from Purchase of the Old Gold to the end sale with the documents/trail of accounts at each stage along with accounting for sale as second-hand' - The applicant has furnished the detailed flow chart exhibiting the process of purchase and sale of old gold/jewels, but the same is not substantiated with Purchase to end stage documents & the accounting of the purchase, process undertaken and sale of such goods as required by this Authority - Advance ruling is a facility extended and the person seeking the same has to furnish the details as required by the authority to verify and pronounce the ruling - In the instant case, from the documents furnished, there is no clear cut link between purchase & sale, and the applicant does not furnish the purchase details and grammage in the sale invoice - Thus the applicant has not furnished the documentary proof that he satisfies the conditions provided under Rule 32(5) enabling him to adopt the differential value as prescribed in the said rule - Hence, no ruling is extended: AAR

- Application rejected: AAR

2022-TIOL-885-HC-MAD-CUS

Chandrasegaram Vijayasundaram Vs Principal Commissioner

Cus - Petitioners are Sri Lankan nationals based in Colombo - By the impugned order dated 14.07.2021, the first respondent reversed Order in Appeals Airport, C.Cus.1.No. 69-73/2018 dated 27.04.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and thus affirmed the order of the third respondent ordering confiscation of the gold & liquor and imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Section 125 and Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Held : Since the value of the gold ornaments worn in person of the respective petitioners exceeded Rs.50,000/-, it was incumbent on the part of the petitioners to have made proper declaration under Customs Baggage Declaration Regulations, 2013 read with Baggage Rules 2016 - Import of gold or silver ornaments exceeding Rs.50,000/- cannot be considered as part of bonafide baggage of tourist travelling to India - The petitioner should have paid customs duty, if they intended to deliver, sell them or gift them to a person in India - On the other hand, if they intended to retain them, they should have requested the proper officer to detain them for being returned to them - Petitioners should have followed Section 80 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Further, one fails to understand, petitioners who claim to be pilgrims visiting an alien country would wear costly jewellery even if it be their customs - The fact that the petitioners also purchased 112 bottles liquor beyond the permissible limits and attempted to walk through the green channel without making declaration also shows that the visit to India by the petitioners were not purely as pilgrimage alone - The conduct of the petitioners attempting to walk through the green channel without proper declaration had raised serious doubts and thus proceedings initiated against the petitioners are in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 - Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the first respondent – Petition is dismissed: High Court [para 44, 46, 52 to 55]

- Petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-884-HC-MAD-ST

SB Aditya Power Plant Projects Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

ST - SVLDRS, 2019 - Petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 14.01.2020 passed by the second respondent as the Designated Authority under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - Second respondent has determined the amount payable by the petitioner towards full and final settlement of tax dues under Central Excise Act, 1944 as Rs.1,54,20,216/- after adjustment of the amounts already paid by the petitioner - According to the petitioner, he has pre-deposited a total sum of Rs.1,86,22,409/- and that the petitioner had un-utilized credit of Rs.1,03,71,501/- which was adjusted in their returns - It is submitted that the Show Cause Notice has not taken into account of CENVAT Credit Portion but has simply levied the entire demand without deducting CENVAT Credit utilization and has sought to deny a credit of Rs.1,03,71,501/-, thus, resulting in double taxation - It is further submitted that before passing order the designated authority should have heard the petitioner.

Held: The demand, if any, could have been restricted only to the net of the amount after adjustment of Rs.1,03,71,501 from Rs.3,49,09,640 less the amount deposited by the petitioner merely because the credit cannot be denied, provided the credit was validly availed - This ought to have been properly examined by the Designated Committee as unnecessarily the assessee is being denied the right to settle the dispute under the Scheme - If the credit was lying un-utilized, the petitioner was entitled to pay 50% of the net amount that is the tax due from the petitioner but this has not been done; there is no discussion in the Impugned Order - Therefore, there is no merits in the impugned order passed by the respondents by demanding a sum of Rs.1,54,20,216 from the petitioner - The rules contemplate hearing - The hearing is meant for proper determination of the amount to be paid by an assessee - The petitioner has not been heard - Impugned order is set aside and matter is remitted back to the jurisdictional officer - Writ petition stands allowed by way of remand: High Court [para 52 to 54]

- Matter remanded: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-883-HC-MAD-CUS

Gold Processors Vs CC

Cus - SCN calls upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the goods proposed to be exported under duty draw back scheme should not detained and why the petitioner should not be imposed with penalty - Petitioner has challenged the impugned order-in-original. Held: No merits in the present writ petition as far as the challenge to the impugned order is concerned as the petitioner has an alternate remedy, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed - However, petitioner is given liberty to file a statutory appeal before CESTAT, Chennai within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order to the petitioner - Writ petition is disposed of: High Court [para 7, 8]

- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-534-CESTAT-DEL

Mannat International Vs CC

Cus - Assessee is in appeal against impugned order vide which the appeal has been rejected on the ground of being barred by time - They had voluntarily admitted his liability towards assessed differential duty not only this, he paid the same and subsequently, got an order of release thereof - Assessee was very-much present before original adjudicating authority - Heavy burden lies on such assessee to explain the delay sufficiently, for each day - The explanation on ground of illness, given by assessee is held to be absolutely vague as they could not substantiate with any medical record - Hence, possibility of appeal filed before Commissioner (Appeals) to be an afterthought and a time gaining strategy cannot be ruled out - No infirmity found in order under challenge: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-533-CESTAT-DEL

Trivium Education Service Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST

ST - The appeal has been filed against impugned order wherein the appeal of Department has been allowed rejecting the refund of Rs. 14,97,670/- as was sanctioned by original adjudicating authority - Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the refund for the sole reason of non-compliance of para 2(h) of Notification No. 27/2012-S.T. - It is mentioned that mere procedural irregularity cannot curtail the substantial benefit - Otherwise also the transaction was of transition period when GST had already ruled out - The amount in question was deposited under mistake of law, hence, was a deposit instead of being duty - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the time bar therein cannot be applied - Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to observe the judicial protocol with respect to issue involved - The decisions not only of this Tribunal but also of the Apex Court have been ignored - The order under challenge is hereby set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-532-CESTAT-AHM

Celtic Systems Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - The issue involved is, whether the IT Service provided by appellant to their associate company M/s Celtic Cross Holding Inc. USA is amount to export of service in terms of Rule 6A(1) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 - Appellant company is working under banner of M/s Celtic System Pvt. Ltd. - Whereas, the Service recipient is working under banner of M/s Celtic Cross Holding Inc. USA - Both the companies are separately registered in their respective countries - Even the directors of company though two directors are common but others are different - Even if there is a note in balance sheet of appellant company that they are associate of M/s Celtic Cross Holding Inc. USA but in the eyes of law as per the companies act both companies are independent entity - Therefore, Clause (f) of Rules 6A(1) ibid stand complied with - This issue has been considered by Gujarat High court in case of Linde Engineering India Pvt. Ltd & Ors , wherein the High court even in case where the Indian Company was 100% subsidiary of foreign company namely Linde AG Germany has held that both are different entity - Appellants are on better footing as they have constitutionally two different entity one is appellant and other is M/s Celtic Cross Holding Inc. USA - Therefore, following the judgment of Gujarat High Court, it is clear that appellant and service recipient are two distinct person, hence, the service provided by appellant to M/s. Celtic Cross Holding Inc. USA clearly falls under export of service - Therefore, demand confirmed by adjudicating authority and upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct and legal - The impugned order is set aside: CESTA

T - Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2022-TIOL-531-CESTAT-DEL

Yash Industries Vs CCE & C

CX - The primary challenge made in original proceedings as well as proceedings under rectification of mistake is to the fact that statements of various witnesses have been relied without said statement being tested for relevance under Section 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Shri Alok Agarwal in his statement has admitted the evasion - He has also admitted the evasion vide his letter - While on the one hand, he was admitting in his various statements the liability, he submitted retractions dated 19/06/2012 against statement dated 15/06/2012, stating that the statement was recorded under duress as per dictates of the officers - It was argued that all these statements given by Shri Alok Agarwal are typed and he was not allowed to write in his own hand writing - There are some documentary evidence recovered from factory premises as well as from the residences - Since there is some documentary evidence available on record and there are various statements which the appellant claims have been obtained under duress reliance on the said statements cannot be placed in absence of same being tested under Section 9D ibid - Matter remanded to original adjudicating authority to examine the relevance of statements under Section 9Dibid and only thereafter relied on said statement: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-530-CESTAT-AHM

Bhilosa Industries Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The limited issue involved is that from which date, appellant is entitled for interest on sanctioned refund - Refund claim had been filed on 19.05.2005 and the same was sanctioned only vide order dated 04.04.2016 - Both the adjudicating authority considered the letter dated 23.11.2015 as refund claim application, whereas vide letter dated 23.11.2015 appellant only informed the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner that CESTAT has passed order in their favour and accordingly to sanction the refund amount along with interest - As per statutory mandate of Section 11BB of the Act, department is under legal obligation to sanction refund claim along with interest after expiry of 3 months from date of filing of refund claim - The time limit for payment of refund amount to appellant by Central Excise authorities (without interest) expired on 19-08-2005 - Since, claimed amount was finally paid to appellant on 04.04.2016, appellant is entitled for statutory interest from 20-8-2005 to the date when refund was eventually paid, i.e. 04-4-2016 - Though, the refund amount was paid to appellant consequent upon final order dated 08.05.2015 passed by CESTAT, but the date of computation of interest amount will commence from date of cessation of three months of original refund application, and not from the date, when refund amount was finally paid - Issue regarding payment of interest on delayed refund amount is no more res integra in view of judgment of Supreme Court in case of M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 2011-TIOL-105-SC-CX - Impugned order is not sustainable, hence the same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT