I-T- AO does not have power to substitute purchase price of shares with a different value than the value at which actually it is paid by assessee : ITAT

I-T- CIT(A) rightly deleted addition of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 based on evidences on record and also capacity of investors who have sufficient own sources : ITAT

I-T- Order passed u/s 263 is invalid as not in conformity with CBDT circular No.19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 : ITAT

I-T- Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) is invalid as notice u/s 274 is issued without striking off irrelevant portion of limb : ITAT

GST - Anticipated contract not awarded to applicant, hence they sought for withdrawal of application seeking advance ruling - Allowed: AAR

GST - ' Raula Gundi' is nothing but 'Chewing Tobacco (without lime tube)' classifiable under 2403 9910 and attracts tax @28% and Compensation Cess @160%: AAR

GST - Roombr, a wall-top computer is rightly classifiable under TH 8471 4190: AAR

ST - If entire tax liability has been discharged by appellant in manner as provided under Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 there cannot be another confirmation of demand against them on accrual basis: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-150-AAR-GST

Sri Amareshwar Traders

GST - Applicant had sought an advance ruling vide their application dated 29 September 2022 - However, the applicant vide their letter/email dated 08.12.2022 requested the authority to permit them to withdraw their application quoting the reason that the expected contract has not been awarded to them and consequently the question is irrelevant and hence there is no need for a ruling on the query raised by them.

Held: Application filed for advance ruling is disposed of as withdrawn: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2022-TIOL-149-AAR-GST

Das And Sons

GST - 'Raula Gundi' is nothing but " Chewing Tobacco (without lime tube)" and the HSN Code is '2403 9910' [and not as claimed under 2403 9920] - Applicable rate of GST on the product is 28% (14% CGST + 14% SGST) - The said product also appears at Sl.No.26 of Notification No.01/2017-Compensation Cess (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 issued under the CGST Act, 2017 under which Compensation Cess of 160% is leviable on it: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2022-TIOL-148-AAR-GST

Virtulive Technologies Pvt Ltd

GST - Product " Roombr " comprising of a central processing unit, a Bluetooth keyboard and IR pen to provide interactivity support as an input unit and a projected interactive display as an output unit is neither a micro-computer nor a large or main frame computer and thus it gets covered under ‘Others' - Roombr , a wall-top computer is rightly classifiable under TH 8471 4190: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2022-TIOL-1167-CESTAT-MUM

Sankalpan Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs CST

ST - As per impugned order, demand against appellants have been confirmed on four accounts i.e. Commercial or industrial construction services, Works contract services, Renting of immovable property services and Business Support Services - As regards to Commercial or industrial construction services, Commissioner has himself held that the services provided by appellant under this category of services are along with transfer of material - Demand of service tax has been made in respect of indivisible contracts for turnkey projects, involving supply of services and material for provision of said services - Since Supreme Court has concluded that these services could not have been taxed prior to introduction of "work contract services" by Finance Act, 2007, Tribunal have no hesitation in holding that the demand made in respect of these services, by denying abatement claimed can survive - Appellant has undertaken that apart from the amount demanded and confirmed by impugned order, no other relief shall be sought by appellant - As regards to Works contract services , dispute is only in respect of manner of determination of quantum of tax payable during particular financial year - Prior to amendments made in 2010, service tax was payable on the basis of amount received during particular period and not on accrual basis - If entire tax liability has been discharged by appellant in manner as provided under Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 there cannot be another confirmation of demand against them on accrual basis - For the purpose of factual verification of payment of service tax in respect of these services, matter is remanded to original authority - As regards to Renting of immovable property services and Business Support Services, Commissioner has concluded that the amount forfeited by appellant, is a consideration on the basis of definition of term "consideration" as per Section 2 (d) of Contract Act, 1962 - Impugned order which relies solely on definition as contained in Contract Act, for holding that this amount is "consideration", for services provided or to be provided cannot be upheld in view of specific definition contained in Finance act, 1994 - Commissioner needs to record a finding to the effect that this amount is a consideration as per Finance Act, 1994 by referring to definition contained in therein - For the purpose of examining issue again vis a vis the definition of "consideration" as per explanation to section 67 of Finance Act, 1994, matter needs to be remanded to original authority for de-novo determination - Matter is remanded back to original authority - Since the matter is quite old, original authority to decide the matter in remand proceedings within three months: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT