2022-TIOL-1354-HC-AHM-IT

Pr.CIT Vs Hiren Kumudchandra Mehta

Whether gross profit rate computed at 3.98% is sustainable when there is no evidence to show that purchases were bogus where where certain parties are also shown to have indulged in bogus billing - YES: HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1353-HC-AHM-IT

Pr.CIT Vs Ambe Tradecorp Pvt Ltd

Whether additions framed u/s 68 can be sustained where the AO is unable to establish that identity & creditworthiness of assessee's creditors was not genuine, whereas the assessee was able to prove otherwise - NO: HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1352-HC-KOL-IT

Dinesh Kumar Goyal Vs UoI

Whether re-assessment order passed by the AO without allowing an opportunity of personal hearing is sustainable - NO: HC

- Writ petition allowed: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1351-HC-MP-IT

Sylph Technologies Ltd Vs Pr.CCIT

Whether re-assessment notices can be interfered with when there is prima facie merit in the reasons recorded for commencing such proceedings & where the assessees are free to raise all contentions before the AO - NO: HC

- Writ petition dismissed: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1350-HC-DEL-IT

Kusum Gupta Vs ITO

Whether re-assessment proceedings are rightly commenced where details of certain trading activity of a suspicious nature, are not disclosed by the assessee - YES: HC Whether nonetheless, the re-assessment order warrants being quashed since additional evidence to be furnished by assessee needs to be considered & where assessee was not given a chance to file written submissions - YES: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1349-HC-DEL-IT

Manoj Finvest Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.CIT

In writ, the High Court observes that the issue at hand stands settled by the Apex Court wherein it was held that adjustment made as per provision u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act is covered under provisions of Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Hence the Court directs the Revenue authorities concerned to dispose off the assessee's application in 4 weeks' time.

- Writ petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1348-HC-DEL-IT

Vijay Garg Vs ITO

Whether re-assessment proceedings against a deceased assessee can be continued, where the assessee was alive at the time when SCN u/s 148 of the Act had been issued and where the details of the assessee have been amended by the AO in the order - YES: HC

- Writ petition dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-965-CESTAT-MUM

Vijay S Poojary Vs CC

Cus - Appeals filed challenging legality of confirmation of penalty at reduced rate under Section 114(3) of Customs Act, 1962 - It has become a settled principle of law that evidence not tested by cross examination has no probative value and there should be opportunity provided to opposite parties to cross examine the witnesses - Placing reliance on statements of witnesses recorded by Departmental Officers without providing an opportunity of cross examination to appellant is a clear violation of principle of natural justice, for which order passed by Commissioner (A) cannot sustain - Matter remanded to Adjudicating Authority with direction to provide copies of relied upon documents and opportunity of cross examination of those witnesses, so as to complete a de novo proceeding and pass necessary order placing reliance only on evidence of those witnesses who could be cross-examined by appellant: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: MUMBAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-964-CESTAT-MAD

Steel Strips Wheels Ltd Vs CGST & CE

CX - The issue involved is, whether the credit availed on structural items in nature of MS sheets and angles are eligible for credit - Authorities below have mainly relied upon decision of Tribunal in Vandana Global Ltd. 2010-TIOL-624-CESTAT-DEL-LB wherein the Larger Bench held that amendment brought forth in definition of capital goods w.e.f. 7.7.2009 is retrospectively applicable - Said decision has been set aside by High Court of Chhattisgarh 2017-TIOL-2853-HC-CHATTISGARH-CX - There is no dispute that MS items were used for fabricating and installing paint plant within the premises of appellant - The said paint plant is also integral to manufacturing activity - After applying the decision in case of India Cements Ltd. 2015-TIOL-650-HC-MAD-CX , it is held that the credit availed on MS items has to be allowed to appellant - The impugned order disallowing the credit is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-963-CESTAT-AHM

Rama Cylinders Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - Issue involved is, whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax in respect of exhibition service provided by foreign service provider in respect of exhibition in abroad on behalf of appellant for period 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2009-10 - The service provided by overseas service provider is Business Exhibition Service - The service provider i.e. organiser of exhibitions are located in countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, Bangkok and Ukraine and no any part of service was provided in India - Entire service was provided outside India only, therefore, locations of service is outside India - In such case, service tax cannot be levied in India - Even as per sub-rule (II) of Rule 3 of Taxation of Service (Provided from Outside India and Received in India) Rules, 2006, a service can be taxable in hand of recipient of service in India only when the part of service is performed in India - Admittedly whole of the service was provided outside India and received outside India, therefore, even in terms of said rule, the service tax is not leviable on Business Exhibition Service received by appellant which was performed outside India hence not taxable in the hands of appellant - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT