2022-TIOL-1230-ITAT-DEL

DCIT Vs Federal Mogul Goetze India Ltd

Whether club membership and royalty expenses need not be disallowed if no technical knowledge or skill has been transferred for same - YES: ITAT

- Revenue's appeals dismissed: DELHI ITAT

2022-TIOL-1229-ITAT-MUM

Joseph Mudaliar Vs DCIT

Whether issue of deemed dividend can be remand to file of AO for de novo adjudication after necessary examination/verification of details - YES : ITAT

- Matter remanded: MUMBAI ITAT

2022-TIOL-1228-ITAT-MUM

DCIT Vs Green Infra Ltd

Whether following decision of co- ordinate Bench of Tribunal in assessee's own case for preceding AY, can issue of shares at high premium can be accepted - YES : ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

2022-TIOL-1227-ITAT-MUM

Abbott Healthcare Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether assessee is eligible for depreciation on non-compete fee, as same would fall under category of intangible asset - YES : ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

2022-TIOL-1226-ITAT-BANG

Janatha Fish Meal And Oil Products Vs Pr.CIT

Whether error envisaged by Section 263 is not one that depends on possibility as a guess work, but it should be actually an error either of fact or of law - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: BANGALORE ITAT

2022-TIOL-1225-ITAT-BANG

Bosch Ltd Vs CIT

Whether additional depreciation is allowable even for assets acquired prior to Mar 31, 2005, provided installation of such assets is after Mar 31, 2005 - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: BANGALORE ITAT

2022-TIOL-968-CESTAT-MUM

Roha Dyechem Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Appeal is directed against impugned order passed by Commissioner (A) - Said order has been passed in pursuance of remand order of CESTAT - Issue involved has been determined by Tribunal in its order - The foreign travel expenses were incurred for staff to travel abroad for business purposes - Appellant is a manufacturer and business of manufacturing does not preclude activities relating to manufacture outside the country - Likewise, courier was entrusted with dispatch of documents and correspondence from office of appellant which can be presumed to have been in connection with its principal activity - Furthermore, it is inconceivable that research & development could have been in connection with anything other than manufacture - As in appellant's own case, issue has been decided by Tribunal in their favour, no merits found in impugned order: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-967-CESTAT-AHM

Surya Roshni Ltd Vs CC

Cus - The matter was twice decided by Adjudicating authority - The only ground for rejection of refund given by adjudicating authority is, that the amount of SAD paid by assessee by way of debiting in MEIS scrip and no declaration was found on sale invoice regarding non admissibility of cenvat credit of SAD - From the judgment in ALLEN DIESELS INDIA PVT. LTD. 2016-TIOL-968-HC-DEL-CUS , it is clear that even if assessee does not pay the SAD amount in cash but the same is debited in any incentive scrip, in aforesaid case the same was debited from DEPB, the refund of SAD cannot be denied - As the amount of SAD was debited in MEIS scrip, therefore, the issue is clearly covered by said judgment - As regard the issue that whether for not making the declaration of invoice as required in para 2(b) of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus, refund is admissible or otherwise, the Larger Bench judgment of Tribunal in case of CHOWGULE & COMPANY PVT. LTD. 2014-TIOL-1191-CESTAT-MUM-LB has dealt with the same issue - In view of said judgment, it is clear that even if no declaration is made for that reason the refund cannot be denied - Assessee is clearly entitled for refund - As a result, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2022-TIOL-966-CESTAT-AHM

Kamal Industries Vs CCE & ST

ST - The issue involved is of demand of service tax under Repair and Maintenance category for repairs of nozzles - As regards the merits of case i.e. levy of service tax on Repair and Maintenance service, it is not much in dispute as service tax is clearly payable after 16.05.2005 and in present case, period involved is 2006-07 and 2008-09 - SCN has invoked extended period of demand - From 16.05.2005, there was a clear liability of service tax on Repair and Maintenance, ignorance of law cannot be of any excuse for discharging statutory liability of taxes - Appellant have not registered themselves nor filed any return during relevant period therefore, there was clear suppression of facts on part of appellant - As regards cum-tax value, where any gross amount is charged from service recipient, same shall be treated as value inclusive of all including service tax - Therefore, in light of decision in case of National Securities Depository Limited 2020-TIOL-992-CESTAT-MUM , appellant is entitled for cum-tax benefit - As regards to simultaneous penalties imposed under Sections 76 and 78 of Finance act, 1994, issue is no longer res-integra in view of judgment in case of Raval Trading Company 2016-TIOL-112-HC-AHM-ST that simultaneous penalties under Sections 76 and 78 ibid cannot be imposed, appellant is not liable for penalty under Section 76: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT