2022-TIOL-1159-ITAT-CHD

Shri Jagtar Singh Vs Pr CITWhether if AO took one of the possible views that assesses has sufficient funds to make advance then action of AO cannot be faulted with by PCIT u/s 263 merely because he might have different view - YES : ITAT- Assessee's appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH ITAT

Santosh Dnyaneshwar Chavan Vs ITOWhether issue of unexplained income can be remanded back for reconsideration for passing order after considering additional evidences - YES : ITAT- Matter remanded: MUMBAI ITAT

Shri Pranav Saran Vs ACITWhether interest received on enhanced compensation u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of compensation and hence is not taxable - YES : ITAT- Assessee's appeal allowed: NEW DELHI ITAT

Whether an expenditure is of capital in nature or Revenue in nature, or whether part of the expenditure is capital and part is Revenue, is a highly debatable issue & in respect of which no penalty can be imposed - YES: ITAT- Revenue's appeals dismissed: NEW DELHI ITAT

Larsen And Toubro Public Charitable Trust Vs ITOWhether the exemption of 15% allowed u/s 11(1)(a) is applicable where the amount applied by the assessee for charitable purposes as exceeded the amount of other incomes - NO: ITAT- Appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

Agappe Diagnostics Ltd Vs DCITWhether disallowance under Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act apply to the expenditure incurred in discharge of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on voluntarily basis by the assessee - NO: ITAT

- Appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

2022-TIOL-931-CESTAT-MAD

Cus - The First Appellate Authority has only followed the order of Tribunal in case of M/s. S.P. Associates 2021-TIOL-632-CESTAT-MAD and also the decision of Apex Court in case of M/s. Delhi Photocopiers to order for provisional release of goods - The ratio of said case has been followed in case of M/s. Kutty Impex 2022-TIOL-896-CESTAT-MAD , wherein it was held that First Appellate Authority was correct in allowing the appeal thereby ordering provisional release of goods in question and since there is no change in the facts, same is required to be followed in case on hand as well - Following the ratio decidendi, therefore, appeal of Revenue is dismissed: CESTAT- Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT

M/s Roca Bathroom Products Pvt Ltd Vs CGST & CECX - The issue arises is, whether appellant is eligible for credit on 'Outdoor Catering Services' for period from January 2010 to April 2015 - Amendment was brought forth in definition of "input services" w.e.f. 01.04.2011 which excluded services in nature of outdoor catering services - Further, Supreme Court in case of Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. had held that credit is not eligible after 01.04.2011 - Appellant is not eligible for credit after 01.04.2011 - Further, for period prior to 01.04.2011, appellant is eligible for credit - As regards to penalty, it is obvious that issue is interpretational in nature as same had travelled upto Apex Court wherein Apex Court has held that after 01.04.2011 credit is not eligible - There is no positive evidence adduced by department that appellant intentionally suppressed facts to evade payment of duty - Penalty imposed is set aside - Appellant is eligible for adjusting the amount that has already been paid: CESTAT- Appeal partly allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

ST - Issue relates to dropping of proposal in five SCNs for recovery of Rs. 560,23,36,716 on 'premium' received towards 'marine policy' for period from 2006-07 to 2013-14 - Demand for 2006-11 has been dropped solely on premise that CERA appeared to have accepted the stand of service tax authorities that appropriate taxes had been discharged - CERA is the field arm of Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) entrusted with responsibilities in accordance with Constitution - A SCN is issued under appropriate statutory empowerment and is taken to its logical conclusion, independent of source leading to the issue of notice, in adjudication proceedings - From the disposal of these notices in impugned order, obligation devolving upon adjudicating authority has evidently not been discharged insofar as demand the first notice is concerned - It is seen for that, for remaining notices, there has been no evaluation save for the period 2011-12 - The applicability of finding for this period to subsequent periods has not been explained in impugned order - Furthermore, blanket acceptance of certificates, such as they are, of Chartered Accountant merely owing to assessee being a public sector unit does not lend credence to finding thereupon; while such publicly owned entities may be excused for any flaw in discharge of their tax liabilities as not being attributable to deliberate evasion, according of special treatment to such entities is discriminatory and not consistent with equal treatment required of tax laws - Adjudicatory process has been incomplete and has thereby impacted the acceptability of impugned order - It would, therefore, be appropriate to have notices adjudicated afresh for which matter is remanded back to original authority for appropriate remedial action: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: MUMBAI CESTAT