2022-TIOL-1262-HC-AHM-IT

Jin Bhakti Trust Vs ITO

In writ, the High Court directs the competent authority to consider the objections dated 10.1.2022 filed by the petitioner to the re-opening notice under section 148 of the Act within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order on its own merits. - Writ petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1261-HC-MAD-IT

Kariyagoundanur Muthusamy Chettiar Chinnadurai Vs ACIT

Whether violation of natural justice is not fatal in all situations and a wholistic view should be taken of the issue, such that the interests of all parties are properly balanced - YES: HC

Whether writ petition is maintainable where although the rules of natural justice are contravened, the assessee also has parallel appeals pending before the Appellate Authorities - NO: HC

- Writ petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1260-HC-DEL-IT

Jain Cooperative Bank Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether re-opening of assessment is valid where a prima facie case of escapement of income is made out - YES: HC

- Writ petition dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1259-HC-DEL-IT

I Money Wallet Pvt Ltd Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre

In writ, the High Court directs the Revenue authorities concerned to keep the online portal open till 23.09.2022 so that the assessee can file its reply and submission for assessment year 2020-21. Also, as is settled in Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. the Revenue is to grant a personal hearing.

- Writ petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1256-HC-DEL-IT

Pr.CIT Vs Diageo Distilleries Pvt Ltd

Whether certain expenses merit being allowed as business expenses, where Revenue is unable to disprove that they were not incurred in course of business - YES: HC

- Appeal dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1252-HC-DEL-IT

Pr.CIT Vs Attire Designers Pvt Ltd

Whether sufficiently established identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions of purchases made by assessee from sundry creditors, debars addition u/s 68 - YES: HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-914-CESTAT-DEL

Mehta Metal Industries Vs CCE, C & CGST

CX - The issue involved is, whether the appellant who is operating under 'Compounded Levy Scheme' is entitled pro-rata abatement/refund of duty for period during which machine admittedly was inoperative - Issue is squarely covered in favour of appellant by ruling of Rajasthan High Court in case of Jupiter Industries 2006-TIOL-459-HC-RAJ-CX which have been followed by Division Bench of Tribunal in case of M/s Paradise Steel Ltd. 2019-TIOL-2335-CESTAT-DEL - Accordingly, appellant is entitled to refund for period, the machines remained un-operative for part of the month on pro rata basis - Accordingly, revenue is directed to grant refund of the amount from the date of deposit till the date of refund, with interest as per Rules: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-913-CESTAT-MUM

Meghna Clearing And Forwarding Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Issue relates to confirmation of penalty of Rs.50,000/- at the reduced rate by Commissioner (A) that was imposed for Rs.2,00,000/- on appellant under Section 114(iii) of Customs Act, 1962 - The concern clerk himself had admitted his mistake and sought for a lenient view in the matter - As per Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act, facts admitted by parties or their agents are not required to be proved in any proceedings - For act of employee direct responsibility is fixed on Customs broker for which the findings of Tribunal in case of A.S. Gopinath 2007-TIOL-625-CESTAT-BANG cannot help the appellant in getting the desired remedy - Impugned order in imposing penalty under Section 114(1) of Customs Act for Rs.50,000/- on appellant CHA is hereby confirmed: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-912-CESTAT-AHM

Nishkarsh Industrial Services Vs CCE & ST

ST - Issue arises is, whether the service of appellant is classifiable as Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service or under job work service - As per agreement, service recipient is having their factory and carried out various manufacturing activities - Appellant was assigned job work related to manufacturing on the basis of charges which is per piece basis and item being manufactured by appellant - As per terms and conditions of agreement, service recipient will provide all the facilities - It is also one of conditions that appellant is under obligation to pay minimum wages to its workers even though there is no work - However, whenever there is work, charges will be paid by service recipient to appellant as per the rates decided - Entire control of workers deputed by appellant for job work is with appellant only and service recipient has no obligation as regards the number of workers, man-hour for the job assigned to appellant - In these terms of contract, contract is for job work carried out by appellant for service recipient - Therefore, there is no activity of providing service of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service - Appellant have not provided service of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service, hence the demand does not sustain: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT