2022-TIOL-1281-HC-MP-IT

Ramchandra Haryani Vs UoI

Whether the HC should indulge itself in matters that are factual in nature and would better be decided by the Income Tax Commissioner - NO: HC

- Writ Petition disposed off: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1138-ITAT-MUM

3I Infotech Consultancy Services Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether a re-assessment order can be passed against a non existing company- the amalgamating entity which ceases to exist on merger by way of the approved scheme - NO: ITAT

- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

2022-TIOL-1137-ITAT-MUM

ITO Vs More Marketing Pvt Ltd

Whether additions can be deleted if it is not disallowed in previous years by other AO's- YES: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

2022-TIOL-1136-ITAT-MUM

Essel Mining And Industries Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether in respect of concluded assessments, earlier assessment completed should not be disturbed in search assessments without existence of any incriminating material relatable to such assessment year - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

2022-TIOL-1135-ITAT-BANG

Datacorp Traffic Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether employees contribution to PF&ESI paid by assessee before due date of filing return of income is allowable deduction- YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: BANGALORE ITAT

2022-TIOL-1134-ITAT-PUNE

Sai Bhargavanath Infra Vs ACIT

Whether the margin of 10% mentioned u/s 43CA introduced as a welfare legislation be given a retrospective appliaction - YES: ITAT

- Appeal allowed: PUNE ITAT

2022-TIOL-1280-HC-MAD-GST

Trans India Cargo Carriers Vs Asstt. Commissioner

GST - Petitioners have challenged orders passed cancelling their registrations - Some of the petitioners have missed the bus regarding several opportunities that were extended by way of Amnesty schemes - Act, 2017 contains two modes to enable revocation of cancellation or restoration of registration viz. remedy u/s 30 which none of the petitioners have exercised and second remedy is filing of appeal which some of them have. Held: High Court has had an occasion to consider identical issue in a batch of writ petitions and has passed an order dated 17.08.2022 - 2022-TIOL-1238-HC-MAD-GST and wherein the directions contained in the order dated 31.01.2022 - 2022-TIOL-261-HC-MAD-GST are also made applicable to the said cases - Inasmuch as the petitioners are permitted to file returns for the period prior to the cancellation of registration, if not already filed, together with tax defaulted along with interest for such belated payment of tax and fine and fee fixed for belated filing of returns; respondents to take suitable steps by instructing GSTN to make suitable changes in the architecture of the GST web portal to allow these petitioners to file returns and pay tax/penalty/fine; above exercise to be carried within a period of 45 days - Above order is applicable on all fours to the present petitions - Petitions allowed: High Court [para 1, 2, 4]

- Petitions allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-922-CESTAT-DEL

Arvind Industries Vs CC, CE

CX - Appellant is engaged in manufacture of coir mattresses and intermediate products, namely, PU Foam and PU Foam SST - Department observed that separate account in name and style as "captive use" has been maintained by appellant in their ER-returns - Though intermediatery products if used captively is exempted from duty in terms of Notfn 67/1995-CE - However, it was observed that appellant has cleared PU Foam without payment of duty as no final products has been shown produced from consumption of said PU Foam during relevant period - Resultantly, demand has been confirmed - Keeping in view that ER returns and figures mentioned therein have to be meticulously examined specifically the figures of column of "captive use" are concerned to recalculate the ratio of material consumed and final product cleared - Apparently, these figures included the captive use of PU Foam & PU SST - Original adjudicating authority is, therefore, required to look into the documents on record, to consider re-conciliation chart, if any, filed by appellants so as to calculate the quantity of PU Form/ PU Foam SST as have been captively used and that amount thereof in the final product cleared, and to decide the case afresh independent of decisions already on record - Thus, with these direction, appeal hereby is allowed by way of remand: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-921-CESTAT-AHM

S A Domadia Vs CCE & ST

ST - Assessee is in appeal against confirmation of demand of service tax, interest and penalty - It is not in dispute how many services like construction of roads, laying down of pipelines etc were provided within confines of GIDC - All the services provided by appellant within confines of GIDC directly, GIDC would be covered under Sr. No. 12 (a) of Notfn 25/2012- ST only if these said civil structure or any other original work meant predominantly for use other than for commerce, industry or other business and it cannot be said that GIDC are not meant for promotion of industry or commerce - It cannot be said that Sr. No. 12(a) of Notfn 25/2012 provides any exemption to work done by appellant - Since GIDC are open to general public also apart from various industry and trade, it can be said that said services bridges, tunnels in GIDC are open for to general public in that sense benefit of Sr. No. 13 (a) of Notfn 25/2012- ST can be extended to roads, bridges, tunnels for goods transporting within GIDC - Appellant has also claimed the benefit where he has provided service as sub contractor to main contractor in shape of works contract and where main contractors are exempted from service tax - Appellant has claimed the benefit of Sr. no 29(h) of Notfn 25/2012- ST - They had not specified specific details of all the work done by main contractor and therefore, has not substantiated the claim by main appellant - Appellant is not entitled for any benefit of Sr. No. 12 (a) of Notfn 25/2012 - They cannot claim the benefit of Sr. No. 13(a) of Notfn 25/2012 in respect of roads constructed by them in GIDC - Appellant can claim the benefit of Sr. No. 29 (h) in respect of service of works contract provided as sub contractor to main contractor wherever appellant is able to establish that main contractor was exempted from service tax in respect of works contract - No evidence supports the same has been produced and no bifurcation has been give - Matter remanded to original adjudicating authority to decide a fresh by examining each case and testing the same on parameters prescribed: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT