I-T - Once taxpayer has opted not to respond to reasons accompanying notice u/s 148-A(b), plea raised by him assessee w.r.t. wrongful assumption of jurisdiction at hands of ITO, is without merit: HC

I-T - Once belated TDS amount stands deposited along with interest, there is no reason to continue with criminal proceedings initiated u/s 276B & 278B IPC: HC

I-T - Sec 148 notices issued to taxpayer under unamended sec 148, shall be deemed to have been issued u/s 148A as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and treated to be showcause notices in terms of Sec 148A(b): HC

I-T - Re- assessment framed without supplying copy of reasons to assessee is not valid assessment & cannot not be sustained : ITAT

I-T - If application moved by assessee requesting for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A was forwarded to AO and he was given sufficient time to rebut same, there is no violation of Rule 46A: ITAT

I-T - Mobilization charges payments made is reimbursements on which deduction of tax at source is not warranted - ITAT

I-T- Nexus between expenses sought to be disallowed and earning of dividend income has to be seen before applying rule 8D of IT Rules : ITAT

I-T - Travelling charges disallowance of 10% on estimation basis is just and proper in absence of complete reconciliation : ITAT

2022-TIOL-901-HC-P&H-IT

Satish Kumar Jindal Vs ITO

Whether once taxpayer has opted not to respond to reasons accompanying notice u/s 148-A(b), plea raised by him assessee w.r.t. wrongful assumption of jurisdiction at hands of ITO, is without merit - YES: HC

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

2022-TIOL-900-HC-JHARKHAND-IT

Dev Multicom Pvt Ltd Vs State Of Jharkhand

Whether once belated TDS amount stands deposited along with interest, there is no reason to continue with criminal proceedings initiated u/s 276B & 278B - YES: HC

- Assessee's petition allowed: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-899-HC-JHARKHAND-IT

Ajay Kumar Agarwal Vs UoI

Whether section 148 notices issued to taxpayer under unamended section 148, shall be deemed to have been issued u/s 148A as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and treated to be showcause notices in terms of section 148A(b) - YES: HC

- Case disposed of: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-665-ITAT-BANG

Pranava Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether nexus between expenses sought to be disallowed and earning of dividend income has to be seen before applying rule 8D of IT Rules - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: BANGALORE ITAT

2022-TIOL-664-ITAT-PUNE

Coca Cola India Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether lump sum travel expenditure disallowance of 10% on estimation basis is just and proper in absence of complete reconciliation between travelling expenses in relation to assessee's business requirement - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: PUNE ITAT

VAT - If assessee has not availed of alternative efficacious remedy of appeal prescribed u/s 26 of MVAT Act, it should not challenge assessment order directly in writ petition under Article 226: HC

VAT - Sales tax demanded on oil sold by cannot be demanded twice in respect of same transaction: HC

GST - If manufacturer is not entitled to claim concessional rate of tax u/s 3(3) of TNGST Act, they are liable to pay penalty u/s 23 of TNGST Act, for violation of provision of section 3(3): HC

Cus - Just for failure to physically visit and verify the antecedents of client, revocation of licence of CB broker has been held to be not justified: CESTAT

CX - Appellant have maintained regular books of accounts and records in normal course of business and they have been subjected statutory audit by department time to time, so extended period of limitation is not invokable: CESTAT

ST - Appellant is not required to reverse CENVAT credit as capital goods have not been physically removed from the premises where they were initially installed : CESTAT

2022-TIOL-896-HC-MAD-GST

Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Whether tin containers purchased by manufacturer cannot be construed as if the same were involved in manufacturing activity, in absence of any concrete material to prove same - YES: HC Whether packing materials are excluded from concessional rate of tax against form XVII declaration, if there is no material to prove that tin containers purchased by manufacturers are used in manufacturing activity - YES: HC Whether when manufacturer is not entitled to claim concessional rate of tax u/s 3(3) of TNGST Act, they are liable to pay penalty u/s 23 of TNGST Act, for violation of provision of section 3(3) - YES: HC

- Assessee's petition partly allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-898-HC-MUM-VAT

Hal Offshore Ltd Vs State Of Maharashtra

Whether when assessee has not availed of alternative efficacious remedy of appeal prescribed u/s 26 of MVAT Act, it should not challenge assessment order directly in writ petition under Article 226 - YES: HC

- Assessee's petition dismissed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-897-HC-ALL-VAT

IBP Company Ltd Vs CCT

Whether sales tax demanded on oil sold by the assessee can be demanded twice in respect of the same transaction - NO: HC

- Case remanded: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-544-CESTAT-MUM

Friends Syndicate Clearing Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - A SCN was issued to appellant proposing to revoke license, forfeit the security deposit and for imposition of penalty - The entire case made against appellant is on account of their failure not to properly and completely verify the antecedents of person/ client entrusting them with the paper and consignment for export - There was no need for physical visit to premises and meeting with client before taking the job - Principal Commissioner has relied upon the statement recorded during course of investigation - These statements have not been corroborated - Even statutory documents produced by appellant for undertaking KYC of exporter (IEC Holder) have not been verified and found to fake - The only allegation that has been made the ground for not complying/ discharging the obligations casted under CBLR, 2018 is that CB had not physically met and physically verified their premises - It is also not the case of revenue that appellant was in any way involved in abetting or colluding with alleged fraudsters in substitution of export consignments after their clearance from CFS - Inquiry officer has in his report held that none of the alleged violations can be established against appellant during the inquiry proceedings - In series of decisions, just for failure to physically visit and verify the antecedents of client, revocation of licence of CB broker has been held to be not justified - Various High Courts have held that punishment for the offences should be proportionate to the gravity of offence - Tribunal do not find that appellant was in any way responsible for any act of misconduct but is vicariously responsible for the acts of their employees, hence the punishment of revocation of licence is much harsh and disproportionate to the offences committed - Order of revocation of the license of CB and forfeiture of security deposit is set aside - Penalty imposed on CB is reduced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs 10,000/-: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-543-CESTAT-DEL

Godawari Power And Ispat Ltd Vs CCE, C & CGST

CX - A SCN was issued invoking extended period of limitation as during the course of audit for period April 2015 to June 2017, it appeared that appellant have wrongly availed Cenvat credit on inputs and input services and on capital goods as concerned invoices appeared to be more than one year old on date of taking credit, as per details in Annexure to the SCN - Appellant have maintained regular books of accounts and records in normal course of business - Further, they have been subjected statutory audit by department time to time - Extended period of limitation is not invokable - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-542-CESTAT-AHM

Prafful Overseas Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The issue involved is that whether the appellant is entitled for Cenvat Credit in respect of education cess and secondary higher education cess paid on total custom duty when both the duty were exempted against CVD vide Notification Nos. 13/2012-Cus and 14/2012-Cus - It is not a case of demand but appellant have paid the amount of cenvat credit accepting their mistake that the cenvat credit in respect of CVD of custom duty is not admissible - This issue was raised by audit and consequently appellant have paid the amount - The issue of non availability of cenvat credit has been decided by Tribunal in case of Nirma P.Ltd and ors 2018-TIOL-968-CESTAT-AHM - As per this judgment, appellant was not entitled for cenvat credit - Therefore, as per the merit of case, appeallant was not entitled for cenvat credit - Accordingly, they have reversed the credit - There is no demand involved, the issue of extended period can be decided only in case of demand not in the case of refund - The refund needs to be decided only on the merit whether the appellant was entitled for cenvat credit or otherwise - The demand notice issued under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 which prescribes the time limit which is not the case here - Accordingly, no infirmity found in impugned order rejecting the refund: CESTAT

- Appeals dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2022-TIOL-541-CESTAT- MAD

Vodafone Idea Ltd Vs CGST & CE

ST - The issue arises is, whether the appellants are liable to reverse credit on capital goods consequent to formation of another company Vodafone Essar Infrastructure Ltd. by which there is transfer and merger of PIA of appellant as per the scheme of arrangement - There is no dispute that even after transfer, capital goods are continued to be used by appellant for providing output service - The Tribunal in appellant's own case has analyzed the very same issue - The Tribunal relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in case of J.K. Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. 2002-TIOL-559-SC-CX-LB to observe that removal means physical and actual removal of goods from factory to any other place - Tribunal held that appellant is not required to reverse CENVAT credit as the capital goods have not been physically removed from the premises where they were initially installed - Following the said decision, in appellant's own case, demand cannot sustain - The impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-540-CESTAT-AHM

Bhoomi Construction Company Vs CCE & ST

ST - This appeal has been filed by assessee against rejection of refund claim filed by them under Section 102 of Finance Act, 1994 - The refund claim was not filed within a period of six months as provided in sub-section (3) of Section 102 ibid - The Finance Bill was granted assent on 14.05.2016 and refund claim has been filed on 05.09.2017 - Issue has been settled by decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of MDP Infra (India) Pvt. Limited 2019-TIOL-1935-HC-MP-CX , which was approved by Apex Court - Therefore, relying on said decision, appeal is dismissed: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT