I-T - If investment made by assessee is neither more than amount declared by her during assessment proceedings nor outside books, then same cannot be declared as unexplained: ITAT

I-T - Expenses which is incurred to bring building in same form and no new asset came into existence, are revenue in nature and hence, allowable u/s 37: ITAT

I-T- Expenses incurred for providing gifts, travel facilities & hospitality to medical practitioners in form of sales promotion expenses can't be allowed: ITAT

I-T - Once dispute is settled under DTVSV, then penalty or interest can be levied on disputed claim as per provisions of DTVSV 2020: ITAT

I-T - If there is no direct nexus between R&D activities carried out and product manufactured by assessee company, then R&D expenditure cannot be allocated to manufacturing unit: ITAT

I-T - Assessee's failure to explain source of source cannot be treated as his failure to discharge onus u/s 68: ITAT

I-T - Failure of AO to carry out necessary verification in relation to share application money received by assessee in terms of Sec 68, which renders assessment prejudicial to interest of Revenue, merits revision u/s 263: ITAT

I-T - Transaction made through RTGS even on Recognised Stock Exchange does not prove its genuineness and does not negate allegation of providing bogus gains to beneficiaries so as delete additions u/s 68: ITAT

Whether failure of AO to carry out necessary verification in relation to share application money received by assessee in terms of Sec 68, which renders assessment prejudicial to interest of Revenue, merits revisional interference u/s 263 - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

Whether expenses incurred for providing gifts, travel facilities & hospitality to medical practitioners in form of sales promotion expenses can be allowed u/s 37 of act - NO : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed/Revenue's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

Whether when there is no direct nexus between R&D activities carried out and product manufactured by assessee company, then R&D expenditure cannot be allocated to manufacturing unit - YES: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

Whether once dispute is settled under DTVSV, then penalty or interest can be levied on disputed claim as per provisions of DTVSV 2020 - YES: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

Whether transaction made through RTGS even on Recognised Stock Exchange does not prove its genuineness and does not negate allegation of providing bogus gains to beneficiaries so as delete additions u/s 68 - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

ST - The value of taxable services cannot be dependent on value of goods supplied free of cost by service recipient and such a value has no bearing on value of services provided by service recipient: CESTAT

ST - Once it is held that appellant is not liable to pay Service Tax, they are also not entitled to avail cenvat credit of amount collected in name of Service Tax and is liable to be paid to Government Exchequer: CESTAT

CX - In absence of evidence to establish that duties were paid after adjudication and rendering a finding of fraud, collusion or suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty, rejection of refund claims cannot be justified: CESTAT

Cus - When a refund application is made within prescribed time-limit before a wrong forum and subsequently filed before correct forum, the original date of filing of claim has to be taken for computing time-limit of one year: CESTAT

ST - The issue involved is as to whether the free supply of materials namely, cement and steel by appellant to contractor would be included in value of service provided by contractor engaged for construction work in appellant factory - In Bhayana Builders 2018-TIOL-66-SC-ST , the Supreme Court observed that the value of taxable services cannot be dependent on value of goods supplied free of cost by service recipient and such a value has no bearing on value of services provided by service recipient - The distinction sought to be made by Commissioner (Appeals) is, therefore, without any basis - Thus, the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be sustained and is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

ST - The Appellant on the basis of MOU between Andhra Pradesh Housing Board and IJM (India) Infrastructure Limited, to carry out construction of apartments catering to needs of lower and middle income groups - Based on this MOU, appellant was developing a huge residential complex in Kukatpally, Hyderabad comprising around 2300 apartment units - A SCN was issued to appellant wherein it is alleged that in as much as appellant is not undertaking any construction by themselves, but the entire construction activity is sub-contracted to M/s IJM (India) Infrastructure Limited, appellant is not providing any taxable service - As per decision of Supreme Court in L&T limited 2015-TIOL-187-SC-ST composite contracts involving transfer of property in goods is not liable to Service Tax prior to 1.6.2007 - Thus, the law on this point is well settled - Appellant was not liable to pay Service Tax during relevant period, i.e., from April 2005 to March 2007 - Once it is held that appellant is not liable to pay Service Tax, they are accordingly not entitled to Cenvat credit - Hence the decision of Commissioner disallowing the credit of Rs. 3,29,32,249/- is upheld - Since the said credit has already been utilised for payment of Service Tax which is not required to be paid, it is as good as reversal of credit and hence no further liability subsist - In this connection Tribunal relies on the decision of Indu Eastern Province Project Ltd. 2018-TIOL-3226-CESTAT-MUM - The reliance placed by appellant on decision of Tribunal in Everest Industries Ltd 2019-TIOL-2924-CESTAT-MAD is appropriate - Accordingly, demand under Section 11D of Central Excise Act, 1944 for the period upto 17.04.2006 is set aside - With regard to demand under Section 73A(2) of Finance Act, 1994 for period after 18.04.2006, same is bound to be upheld - By relying upon the finding of this Tribunal in case of Indu Eastern Province Project Pvt Ltd demand of interest under Section 73B ibid is set aside - Penalty imposed on appellant under section 77(2) of Finance Act, 1994 is not sustainable in view of the fact that issues are contentious and there was widespread confusion during the relevant time - With regard to Service Tax demand on import of service during 2005-06, same is set aside by relying on decision of Supreme Court in Indian National Shipowners 2009-TIOL-129-SC-ST - As a consequence, the demand of interest and penalty in this regard is also set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: HYDERABAD CESTAT

CX - The original authority rejected the refund claims holding that appellant is not eligible for CVD and SAD paid by them - Department has rejected the claims invoking Rule 9(1)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - The Department is of the view that credit is not eligible as appellant has paid the duties only after issuing a demand notice - On perusal of alleged demand notice, it is merely in the nature of an intimation letter and has not been issued invoking any provisions of Customs law or Excise law - There is no evidence to establish that the duties were paid after adjudication and rendering a finding of fraud, collusion or suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty - The credit cannot be denied - Appellant is eligible for credit of CVD and SAD paid by them - The Tribunal in case of Circor Flow Technologies 2021-TIOL-828-CESTAT-MAD and Mithila Drugs Pvt. Ltd. 2022-TIOL-203-CESTAT-DEL had analysed a similar issue - Rejection of refund claims cannot be justified: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

Cus - The issue involved is denial of refund claim of SAD on the ground of being time-barred - It is clear from findings recorded by Adjudicating Authority that appellant has filed the refund claim within prescribed time limit of one year from date of payment of duty, however, before a wrong forum - It is the settled position of law that when a refund claim is filed before a wrong forum, within the statutory time-limit, the date on which the claim was originally filed has to be taken as the date of filing of refund claim - The rejection of refund on the ground of time-bar cannot be justified - The impugned order rejecting the refund claim is set aside - However, matter requires to be remanded to Original Authority who shall process the refund claim on merits: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT