2022-TIOL-970-ITAT-MUM

DCIT Vs Unique Land Realty Pvt Ltd

Whether valuation of preference shares under discounted free cash flow method is one of recognized methods - YES : ITAT Whether assessee has discharged initial onus placed upon it u/s 68 and AO has failed to disprove onus discharged by assessee - YES : ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

2022-TIOL-969-ITAT-JAIPUR

Manglam Land Bank Company Vs Pr.CIT

Whether order of PCIT u/s 263 can be upheld when assessee fails to demonstrate on merits that view taken by AO before passing assessment order is plausible view - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: JAIPUR ITAT

2022-TIOL-968-ITAT-AHM

Texraj Realty Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.CIT

Whether issue of land vacation compensation charges is duly examined by AO by making necessary inquiries and is partly allowed by AO by applying his mind - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: AHMEDABAD ITAT

2022-TIOL-967-ITAT-CHD

DCIT Vs Rajinder Pal Garg

Whether Agriculture land is not 'asset' for purposes of levying capital gain - YES: ITAT Whether Ghasni land is an agricultural land which is outside the purview of capital asset u/s 2(14)(b), as it was situated in the State - YES: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: CHANDIGARH ITAT

2022-TIOL-966-ITAT-CHD

Valco Industries Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether assessee's claim once allowed cannot be revisited, without establishing that there has been some fraud or misrepresentation on part of assessee - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: CHANDIGARH ITAT

2022-TIOL-781-CESTAT-CHD

Tej Ram Dharam Paul Vs CCGST

CX - Issue relates to classification of goods manufactured by appellant as to whether that product is chewing tobacco classifiable under heading 24039910 as claimed by appellants or it is jarda scented tobacco classifiable under Tariff Item 2403 99 30 of Central Excise Tariff as claimed by revenue - Admittedly Chapter 24 of Central Excise Tariff which relates 'Tobacco and Manufactured Tobacco substitutes' has not defined Chewing Tobacco and Jarda Scented Tobacco - In same way section / chapter heading notes in chapter 24 of HSN are silent on this issue - Department rests its case only on basis of Test Reports under Test Memo of CRCL - Since the CRCL report which has been relied upon by revenue is not as per BIS specification, reliance placed on it by revenue as well as by adjudicating authority for changing the classification is totally misplaced - Neither in SCN nor before adjudicating authority or before Tribunal, it is the case that appellant have used 'jarda scent' in their product - Even statements relied upon by department nowhere mention that 'jarda scent' has been used by appellant in their product - Commissioner mistook the pleasant odour as mentioned in CRCL test report as scent which is totally different from 'jarda scent', an essential ingredient for manufacturing jarda scented tobacco - The classification given by appellant is proper and hence impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2022-TIOL-780-CESTAT-AHM

Piyush S Viramgama Vs CC

Cus - Appeal filed against impugned order whereby Commissioner imposed penalties upon appellants under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 and under Section 114AA ibid for their alleged involvement of forged/fake VKGUY/DEPPB license and imports there under - In appellant's matter, Commissioner has decided matter ex-parte - He has sought for cross–examination but same was also not considered by Commissioner - It is basic principle of Natural justice that no one can be condemned unheard - Natural Justice is an un codified law purely based on principle of substantial justice and judicial spirit - Principles of Natural Justice are cardinal principles, which must be followed in every judicial and quasi judicial proceeding - Therefore, ex-parte order passed by Adjudicating Authority will not sustain - Matter remanded to Adjudicating Authority for passing a fresh order after granting sufficient personal hearing: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2022-TIOL-779-CESTAT-KOL

Global Castings Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

ST - The original refund claim was filed on 22.07.2015 for the period 2014-15 - Under clause (g) to proviso appended to Notification No. 41/2012-S.T., it has been provided that claim for rebate of Service Tax paid on specified services used for export of goods filed on 21.07.2015 covered the period from April, 2014 and so as advised by Department, appellant requested to return the claim - Thereafter after several correspondences, claim was filed - Adjudicating authority rejected the claim on the ground of limitation and such order was upheld by Commissioner (A) - It is observed that initial date of filing of rebate claim i.e. 22.07.2015 is relevant date as per Section 11B of CEA, 1944 - Hence, rebate claims are not barred by limitation - Technical deviations or procedural lapses are to be condoned, if there is sufficient evidence regarding export of duty paid goods - Refund claim is within the prescribed time limit and accordingly, matter is remanded to adjudicating authority to consider and dispose the refund claim in accordance with law: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: KOLKATA CESTAT

2022-TIOL-778-CESTAT-KOL

Balajee Machinery Vs CCGST & CE

ST - Assessee is in appeal against impugned order whereby Commissioner has confirmed demand of Service Tax along with interest and penalty - The very basis of impugned demand is figures appearing in Income Tax Portal and Profit and Loss account - Since the records have been duly audited, demand cannot be raised for same period on account of change in opinion - Appellant had duly submitted VAT Returns which have been recorded by Commissioner in impugned order - In VAT Return for Financial Year 2015-16, appellant has duly disclosed sales turnover of Rs. 8,13,46,124/- on which VAT has been duly paid, whereas impugned demand has been raised considering the value of taxable services to be Rs. 8,28,06,929/- by taking higher of amount appearing in profit and loss account and Income Tax Return - Similarly, for Financial Year 2016-17, value of taxable services have been considered to be Rs. 8,96,52,728/- whereas appellant has duly disclosed sales turnover of Rs. 8,79,88,828/- in its VAT Return on which VAT has been paid at applicable rate - It appears that major demand has been computed on sales turnover - In so far as issue of limitation is concerned, no ingredient of fraud or suppression found with an intent to evade payment of tax - Demand raised for period up to March 2015 is completely barred by limitation and accordingly same is set aside - Further, since there is no element of fraud or suppression, entire penalty amount is liable to be set aside - In so far as demand pertaining to Financial Year 2015-16 and 2016-17 is concerned, by considering reconciliation statements and Chartered Accountant Certificate submitted by appellant before Adjudicating Authority, as well as VAT returns, there is no occasion to sustain demand as raised in impugned order: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT