2022-TIOL-717-ITAT-BANG

Mysore Race Club Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether question of application of Sec 40A(3) will not apply to cash payments received by horse racing business, if there is diversion of income and expenditure - YES: ITAT

- Matter remanded: BANGALORE ITAT

2022-TIOL-716-ITAT-BANG

G N Venugopal Vs ACIT

Whether asssessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A is rightly made as there are valid seized material avaiable with Revenue - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: BANGALORE ITAT

2022-TIOL-715-ITAT-DEL

ACIT Vs DLF Assets Pvt Ltd

Whether income earned from lease rentals for renting out property per se, ostensibly falls under head 'income from house property', unless it is shown that there was some systematic activity falling into nature of business - YES: ITAT

Whether income derived from approved activity from SEZ is liable to be allowed as deduction u/s 80IA - YES: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: DELHI ITAT

2022-TIOL-937-HC-KOL-GST

Chandra Udyog Vs Asstt. Commissioner

GST - Petitioner has challenged the impugned order of rejection of petitioners' claim of refund of excess balance of cash ledger on the ground that the said order is a non-speaking one line order. Held: Bench finds that the allegation of the petitioners that the aforesaid impugned order is not a speaking order is substantially correct and it does not deal with the objection and contentions raised by the petitioner against the impugned show cause notice - Order set aside and matter remanded to the respondent authority concerned to pass a fresh order after considering the contention/issues raised by the petitioners, within four weeks - Petition disposed of: High Court

- Petition disposed of: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-939-HC-DEL-SERVICE

Anish Gupta Vs UoI

Service - Writ Petitions are in the nature of cross-petitions against the common order dated 29.07.2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Held: It is not in dispute that in the normal course the disciplinary proceedings ought to have been concluded by the end of 2016 - More than adequate opportunities to complete the disciplinary proceedings arising from Departmental Charge Sheet dated 16.07.2015 had been granted by the CAT firstly in 2016, and then again in 2020 - The proceedings were admittedly not concluded within this long period stretching from July 2015 till May 2021 - It is also not a case of dilatory tactics employed by the Petitioner - Further, no application seeking extension of time on any genuine meritorious ground specific to the Petitioner's case was filed before expiry of the extension granted by the CAT in the year 2020, by the Respondent - There is no gainsaying the legal position that the Disciplinary Proceedings cannot continue ad infinitum - Allowing such proceedings to continue ad infinitum would not only be highly prejudicial to the Petitioner herein but destructive of the Rule of Law - The Respondent-Union of India, being a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution is bound to act in a fair non-discriminatory, reasonable and non-capricious manner - The conduct of the Respondent in the facts of the present over a long period of 05 years and not merely on one two dates of hearing, disentitles it for any discretionary relief of extension of time - Once the application for extension of time to complete Disciplinary Proceedings filed by the Respondent was rejected, the Disciplinary Proceedings did not survive and all steps taken subsequent thereto by continuing the Disciplinary Proceedings were manifestly arbitrary, illegal and non est in the eyes of law - Direction given by the CAT to open the sealed cover and to consider the Petitioner for promotion cannot be faulted with - The proceedings arising from the Departmental Charge Sheet dated 16.07.2015 no longer survive and stand closed - All consequential proceedings will also terminate and be considered non est ab initio - The Petitioner must, therefore, be given all consequential benefits, including the necessary promotions at par with his juniors, within 04 weeks: High Court [para 20 to 24, 28]

- UOI Petition dismissed/Officer's petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-50-SC-ST

UoI Vs Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd

ST - Revenue challenges the order passed by the Jharkhand High Court allowing the petition filed by the respondent PSU - Counsel for Revenue submits that in view of the Constitutional Bench judgment in ECIL 2011-TIOL-18-SC-CX-CB holding that the mechanism which was set up for getting approval from the Committee of Disputes (CoD) was out-lived, the matters which had reached finality now could not have been re-opened. Held: It cannot be disputed that the issues in both the appeals of the Revenue and appeal of the assessee were interconnected and in the peculiar circumstances the High Court exercised its discretion to sub-serve the interest of justice - It cannot said that the discretion exercised by the High Court was exercised in a perverse or erroneous manner, to warrant interference: Appeal dismissed

- Appeal dismissed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2022-TIOL-938-HC-KAR-ST

Bellatrix Consultancy Services Vs CCT

ST - Appellant had entered into an agreement with a Professional Lien Search LLC, a Company based in the United States of America (USA) and providing support services to real estate property buyers in the USA - Appellant's activity is to verify the information on various types of issues related to the property proposed to be purchased by the prospective purchasers such as Property Tax information, Building Permits, unpaid bills for utilities, Property maintenance, etc.- Appellant had obtained service tax registration and was paying service tax regularly- Later, the appellant assessee learnt that it was not liable to pay service tax on export of services, in terms of Chapter-V of Finance Act, 1994 and, therefore, filed a refund claim - Assistant Commissioner allowed refund of Rs.11,90,271/- and rejected the claim for remaining amount on the ground that it was beyond the period of limitation of one year- Tribunal upheld this order, therefore, the present appeal on the ground that when the appellant was not liable to pay tax at all, the rejection of part of the claim is untenable. Held: In view of the admitted fact that the services rendered by the assessee satisfy all conditions of Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and the services provided by it are export services, it is entitled for refund of the tax - In view of authority in the case of Shiv Shanker Dal Mills [ AIR 1980 SC 1037 ], the refund cannot be denied on the ground of limitation - Revenue shall refund the amount with interest as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944- Appeal allowed: High Court [para 11, 13]

- Appeal allowed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT