Bipinchandra Purshotamdas Patel Vs ITO

Whether the CIT (A) erred in upholding the addition made to the income of the assessee on account of unexplained cash deposits, when the same was well explained by the assesee - YES: ITAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD ITAT

Poddar Pigments Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether the purpose of a subsidy is the paramount test for determining its character as to being revenue or capital in nature, whereas source of fund or mechanism of disbursal of subsidy is irrelevant - YES: ITAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT

Mgn Agro Properties Pvt Ltd Vs Pr CIT

Whether when the assessment order is apparently erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue having been decided by the AO in favour of the assessee without ascertaining or examining the same order passed by PCIT does not call for any interference - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

Whether addition u/s 41(1) can be made only when amount has been written off by assessee Company in its books of account - YES : ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: DELHI ITAT

Cepham Dairy Development Ltd Vs Pr CIT

Whether obligation to issue share in financial terms can be categorized as liability till the time the shares are not allotted, however the same cannot be categorized as trading liability - YES: ITAT

Whether provisions of section 41(1) can be invoked in respect of share application money which continues to remain outstanding pending allotment of shares and continues to remain reflected in balance sheet - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH ITAT

Arshiya Rail Infrastructure Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether reasons recorded for reopening the assessment are to be read as they were recorded by the Assessing Officer and same cannot be supplemented - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

Shilpa Beverages Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The amount involved is less than the threshold limit - In terms of Section 35B(1) of CEA, 1944, Tribunal may refuse to admit an appeal filed before it, if value of disputed amount is less than Rs.2,00,000/- - Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution in terms of Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 as also in terms of Section 35B(1) of CEA, 1944 being not maintainable as disputed amount is less than the threshold limit: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT

Uniworld Sugar Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Appeal is directed against impugned order whereby Commissioner (A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of time bar - Though the appellant had been corresponding with department on the issue on merit and department has responded vide letter but appellant preferred the appeal against letter dated 03.05.2018 and in a column 4, i.e., date of communication was mentioned as 10.05.2018 - In this fact, Commissioner (A) should have decided the appeal considering the said letter, if this be so, then the appeal was not time barred, therefore, Commissioner (A) ought to have decided the appeal on the basis of said letter and dismissing the appeal on ground of time bar is not proper - Accordingly, matter remanded to Commissioner (A) to decide the appeal keeping in mind the impugned letter: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

Amod Stamping Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - Issue involved is, whether appellant is entitled for refund of service tax paid on ocean freight on the ground that they are entitled for Cenvat credit of service tax paid on ocean freight and accordingly, they are entitled cash refund under Section 142(3) of CGST ACT, 2017 read with Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - The Tribunal in case of Galaxy Poly Plast Industries 2022-TIOL-591-CESTAT-AHM has remanded the matter - Respectfully following the said order, matter is remanded to original authority: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT