2022-TIOL-878-ITAT-MUM

ACIT Vs Siemens Ltd

Whether assessment u/s 143(3) is bad in law if AO issue notice u/s 143(2) in name of company not in existence due to merger as such notice is invalid in nature - YES : ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

2022-TIOL-877-ITAT-DEL

Sobha Jain Vs ITO

Whether following order passed by Co- ordinate Bench of Tribunal on identical issue, addition made by rejecting claim of deduction u/s 10(38) can be removed - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT

2022-TIOL-876-ITAT-DEL

Shree Khathu Shyam Jangid Brahman Dharamshala Vs ITO

Whether assessee can get benefit of sections 11 & 12 in respect of any income derived in any AY preceding to year in which registration u/s 12A is granted if for that AY proceedings are pending before AO or before appellate authorities - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT

2022-TIOL-875-ITAT-DEL

Dhampur Polymers Pvt Ltd Vs ITO

Whether assessment order was passed in a hasty manner without providing reasonable opportunity to either the assessee or to the parties to whom notices u/s 133(6) were issued, can be sustained - NO: ITAT

- Appeals partly allowed: DELHI ITAT

2022-TIOL-874-ITAT-BANG

Sri Suhas Suresh Shet Vs ITO

Whether condonation of delay is factual matter and its allowance depends on cause shown by assessee for delay - YES : ITAT

Whether delay in preferring appeal can be condoned in interest of justice, when there is no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides - YES : ITAT

- Case Remanded: BANGALORE ITAT

2022-TIOL-724-CESTAT-AHM

M S Khurana Engineering Ltd Vs CCE

ST - During the period April, 2005 to September, 2005 assessee provided the services namely, "Commercial and Industrial Construction Services", however, they have not discharged service Tax on due dates - Subsequently, they have paid Service Tax along with interest on 1st December, 2005 - Thereafter, SCN was issued proposing penalty under Section 78 - This is not the case where assessee have supressed transaction of services whereas, they have issued legitimate invoices wherein they have shown Service Tax - This is only case of delayed payment of Service Tax - Appellant have admittedly paid the Service Tax on 1st December, 2005 along with interest, thereafter, SCN was issued on 12.03.2017 - Since, the appellant had already paid the Service Tax along with interest without contesting the same their case clearly falls under Section 73 (3) of Finance Act, 1994 - Accordingly, penalty imposed under Section 78 is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2022-TIOL-723-CESTAT-DEL

Rishabh Transformers Vs CGST

CX - Appellant sought for refund of the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs paid during investigation - Instead of granting refund, department issued a fresh SCN - The Deputy Commissioner passed the order rejecting refund on the ground of time bar as per Section 11B of CEA, 1944 which has been upheld by impugned O-I-A - The amount of Rs.10 lakhs deposited by appellant during pendency of investigation and proceedings, is not duty, fine or penalty, but is to be treated as 'revenue deposit' and provisions of refund of duty as per Section 11B shall not be applicable to the same - Appellant is entitled to refund with interest under Section 35 FF, for which no limitation is applicable - The revenue department cannot retain such amount of Rs. 10 lakhs - Therefore, original authority is directed to refund the amount to the appellant alongwith interest of 12% on the same for period starting from the date of deposit, till the date of refund: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-722-CESTAT-KOL

CC Vs S M Niryat Pvt Ltd

Cus - Matter lies on a very narrow compass inasmuch as, first appellate authority has only remanded the matter to adjudicating authority for fresh decision, to follow the guidelines issued by Apex Court in case of Gangadhar Narsingdas Aggarwal and also Board's Circular No.4/2012-Cus - Further, in case of M/s. Vedanta Ltd. , this very Bench has also remanded the matter to original adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order as per the guidelines issued by Apex Court in said case, in so far as valuation is concerned - Since the valuation has to be arrived at based on Fe content in Iron Ore Fines exported as per guidelines in case of Gangadhar Narsingdas Aggarwal which is the domain of Adjudicating authority and since no such exercise appears to have been done in these cases also, it deems proper and appropriate to concur with remand order of first appellate authority - Consequently, no justifiable reasons found to interfere with impugned orders since there is no finding on merits given by First Appellate Authority - Hence, Department's appeals cannot be accepted for which reason, same are dismissed: CESTAT

- Appeals dismissed: KOLKATA CESTAT