2022-TIOL-814-ITAT-MUM

Titan Laboratories Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether merely because approval is received in subsequent year, deduction u/s 35(2AB) cannot be denied to assessee – YES: ITAT

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

Tata Social Welfare Trust Bombay House Vs ITO

Whether where dividend income is already required to be excluded by virtue of section 10, then same cannot be brought within ambit of section 11 - YES: ITAT

- Appeals dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

Anand Projects Ltd Vs Pr.CIT

Whether each and every erroneous order cannot be subject matter of revision, unless it is pre-judicial to interest of Revenue - YES: ITAT

Whether inadequate enquiries conducted by AO in opinion of Pr.CIT, would not by itself be a ground for Pr.CIT to revise assessment order passed by AO unless Pr.CIT specifically points out that AO has grossly overlooked the issue during assessment proceedings - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

Swaran Lata Vs ITO

Whether FAA should not dismiss the explanation of assessee as well as remand report of AO at the threshold by merely alleging the same as afterthought and self serving - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: DELHI ITAT

SMS Aamw Tollways Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether no further addition can be made when assessee itself offers income from unrecorded receipts higher than estimation of profit made by CIT(A) - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: JAIPUR ITAT

2022-TIOL-662-CESTAT-DEL

Flex Foods Ltd Vs CCGST, C & CE

CX - The charge against appellant is that they have cleared goods in DTA in excess of value permitted - The matter earlier came up before Tribunal and it was remanded vide order in M/s Flex Foods Limited reported as 2017-TIOL-2143-CESTAT-DEL - Issue of limitation was not examined by Tribunal in its order - Matter was earlier remanded for fresh examination of manner in which eligibility to concessional Notification No. 23/2003-C.E. was also to be examined - The Commissioner came to a conclusion that the issue on limitation was not raised by appellant in their earlier appeal and therefore it was not examined by Tribunal - Appellant enclosed copy of appeal earlier filed by them before Tribunal - A perusal of said appeal shows that issue of invocation of extended period and limitation was specifically challenged by appellant in said appeal memorandum - Arguments on limitation were also raised by appellant - The Tribunal, however, did not take note of said argument nor gave any findings, presumably because the matter was being remanded on merit itself - Observation of Commissioner in impugned order that issue on limitation was not raised by appellant before Tribunal is incorrect - Remand order of Tribunal had also kept all issues open, which implies that issue of limitation was also open - Impugned order cannot be sustained and is, therefore, set aside - Matter is remanded to Commissioner for fresh adjudication on merits as well as on limitation: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: DELHI CESTAT

Gillanders Arbuthnot And Company Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

CX - Appellant is a manufacturer of chemicals and had availed services of GTA during month of June 2007 for clearance of said finished goods from its factory premises to the depots and/or directly to its customers - Proceedings were initiated against appellant vide SCN alleging irregular availment of Cenvat credit of service tax in respect of GTA services on purported ground of having been used beyond place of removal, i.e., factory, and consequently not qualifying as an input service under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Dispute pertains to period prior to amendment introduced vide Notification No. 10/2008-C.E. (N.T.) whereby expression "from the place of removal" was substituted by expression "upto the place of removal" - Therefore, issue is squarely covered by decision of Supreme Court in Vasavadatta Cements, 2018-TIOL-90-SC-CX - The factum of payment of service tax on reverse charge basis is not at all in dispute in SCN - Therefore, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT

Aneesh Engineers Vs CST

ST - Appellant is in appeal against denial of refund of service tax - They had classified the service provided by them under 'Erection Commission and Installation Service' and had paid service tax - Later on, Revenue initiated proceedings seeking to classify the service provided by them under 'Commercial Industrial Service' and also sought to include value of free supply material in assessable value for purpose of tax - Issue was decided by original adjudicating authority in favour of appellant on grounds of limitation and demand was set aside - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the order - Appellant pointed out that the appeal filed by revenue before Commissioner (Appeals) was only limited to the issue of addition of free supply material and no appeal was filed in respect of adjustment of amount from the head of 'Erection Commissioning and Installation' to the head of 'Commercial Industrial Construction Service' - It is apparent that while Revenue's attempt to classify the service provided by appellant under 'Commercial Industrial Construction Service' and to include the value of free supply material has failed in Tribunal, original self-assessment of appellant made under head of 'Erection Commissioning Installation' remained undisturbed - Thus, claim of refund can only be made in respect of original assessment under head of 'Erection Commissioning & Installation' - Limitation prescribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 would be applicable and consequently, refund claim filed much after period of limitation would not be admissible: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

Quadrax Growth Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST

ST - The issue involved is, whether refund claim of appellant filed under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules r/w Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.) , has been rightly rejected on the ground that appellant did not debit the amount of refund claim in their cenvat credit record/ ledger at the time of filing refund claim, under the admitted fact that such debit was made later on under intimation to Revenue before adjudication of claim - The debit of amount of refund claim in cenvat credit account suo motu before adjudication, is sufficient compliance of Condition No. 2(h) of said Notfn - Relying on ruling of Supreme Court in case of Hari Chand Shri Gopal & Ors. 2010-TIOL-95-SC-CX-CB , it is held that Commissioner (Appeals) have mis-conceived and mis-directed himself by ignoring the ruling of Supreme Court, which is both judicial indiscipline and also in violation of Article 141 of Constitution of India - Accordingly, Adjudicating Authority is directed to grant refund within a period of 45 days along with interest as per Rules: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

Star Cha Management Services LLP Vs CC

Cus - Appeal has been filed by appellant against forfeiture of security and imposition of penalty - The change was made on 11.12.2014 but it was reported only on 10.10.2018 after a considerable delay - There is a clear violation of CBLR, 2013 under which appellant was licensed - As mere wrong mention of relevant CBLR would not vitiate the order, appellant has violated the provisions - Appellant has claimed that delay occurred largely due to the fact that one of his partner died and he was not in a right frame of mind - Impugned order has, taking a lenient view, not revoked the license of appellant - Case is not of a significant violation but only that of a delay in reporting - Moreover, appellant did not process any document during this period - Forfeiture of security deposit and imposition of penalty under Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2018 is excessive - Order of forfeiture of security deposit is set aside but penalty of Rs. 50,000/- sustained on the Customs Broker for this lapse: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: DELHI CESTAT