2022-TIOL-1309-ITAT-KOL

Radheyshyam Gupta Vs Pr.CIT

Whether revisionary proceedings can be set aside if there is no independent enquiry by PCIT before setting aside AO's order- YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: KOLKATA ITAT

2022-TIOL-1308-ITAT-KOL

Priyo Gopal Bishoyi Grandson Vs ACIT

Whether no addition of undisclosed stock need to be made as excess stock is worked out by AO on basis of erroneous mathematical exercise - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: KOLKATA ITAT

2022-TIOL-1307-ITAT-PUNE

ACIT Vs R J Biotech Ltd

Whether income from production of hybrid seeds without any basic or subsequent agricultural operations can be considered as agricultural income and entitled to exemption- NO : ITAT

- Revenue's appeal allowed: PUNE ITAT

2022-TIOL-1306-ITAT-NAGPUR

DCIT Vs Saral Metallurgicals Pvt Ltd

Whether certain transactions can be considered as unexplained cash credit if investor companies has confirmed transactions- NO: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: NAGPUR ITAT

2022-TIOL-1398-HC-MUM-ST

Sodexo India Services Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

ST -  Petitioner is impugning orders dated 13th April 2022 and had as required under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, made a pre-deposit in cash through Form GST DRC-03 - After the appeals were accepted and registered and appeal numbers were allotted, the petitioner was called for personal hearing - All the appeals came to be dismissed under the impugned orders without going into the merits and only on the ground that the pre-deposit made by petitioner while filing the appeal was improper - According to respondent no.3, petitioners could not have made the deposit in the manner they made.

Held:   This is a matter that requires to be resolved by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBI & C) - From the affidavit filed, it appears that many appellants/assessees were paying the pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 through service tax challans, whereas few appellants/assessees were using DRC-03 mode under CGST Act, 2017 - Therefore, it does appear that the confusion seems to be due to there being no proper legal provision to accept payment of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 through DRC-03 - Some appellants are filing appeals after making pre-deposit payments through DRC-03/GSTR-3B - In our view, this has very wide ramifications and certainly requires the CBI & C to step in and issue suitable clarifications/guidelines/ answers to the FAQs - Impugned orders are quashed and set aside respondent no.3 is directed to hear petitioner denovo and pass such orders as he deems fit on merits in accordance with law - A copy of this order is to be forwarded to CBI & C with a direction to the Secretary of CBI & C to place it before the Chairman of the Board immediately for consideration at the first meeting after receiving a copy of this order and the Board shall take a decision and pass suitable instructions in the first meeting that it would hold or within four weeks of receiving the same, whichever is earlier: High Court [para 6, 8, 9]

- Petition disposed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT