I-T - Revenue Department should not reject assessee's stay application, by relying upon CBDT Instruction which had been superseded with new Instruction: HC

I-T - Once books of accounts/documents/assets seized during course of search were already handed over to AO, then no addition is permissible u/s 153C: HC

I-T - No addition can made by AO simply because of difference in claim of assessee in respect of TDS credit and corresponding income, if Form 26AS gives different picture over which assessee has no control: HC

I-T- Third proviso to section 50C of the Act which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2018 w.e.f. 1-4-2019 is retrospective in nature: ITAT

I-T- Authorities under the Act are required to assist the assessee and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected, if any assessee, under a mistake, misconception or on not being properly instructed: ITAT

I-T- AO has no power to review u/s 147 but only power to reassess based on any new material that has come to his possession : ITAT

I-T - Disallowance u/s 14A should be restricted to extent of exempt income received by assessee during year under consideration: ITAT

I-T-The lack of investigation/enquiry by the AO would render the assessment order amenable to revision u/s 263 of the Act: ITAT

CX - When separate records are maintained for taxable/exempted items, there is no occasion to reverse proportionate Cenvat Credit: CESTAT

ST - Mere recording of conclusion without discussions on submission or case laws is no consideration and absence of reasons has rendered the impugned order unsustainable: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-1182-CESTAT-KOL

Universal Bituminous Industries Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

CX - Appellant is engaged in manufacturing of Bitumen Emulsion (Excisable) and Blown Bitumen (Non-excisabel) and trading of various items, out of which major items are Anti Corrosive, (Black Bitumen Paint), Bitumen Compound, Debonding strip, Sealing compound and Wrap Craft paper - A SCN was issued demanding an amount of Rs. 67,505/- (i.e 6% of 10% of traded goods) on traded items to the tune of Rs. 1,12,50,819/- during Financial Year 2013-14 - Appellant's Company filed a Chartered Accountant's Certificate - The said certificate was filed before Commissioner (A) but same has not been taken into cognizance in impugned order - It has been mentioned in certificate that company purchases various trading items from various parties by payment of Central Excise duty on prevailing rate - It has been certified that Company maintains separate register for purchase of trading items - It has been consistently observed by Tribunal and Superior Courts that, when separate records are maintained for taxable/exempted items, there is no occasion to reverse proportionate Cenvat Credit - Appellant is filling all statutory returns and therefore allegation of fraud, collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of provisions of the Act or of the Rules made thereunder with an intent to evade payment of duty is unwarranted - Impugned orders are set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT

2022-TIOL-1181-CESTAT-MUM

Overseas Infrastructure Alliance India Pvt Ltd Vs CGST & CE

ST - The issue pertains to denial of Cenvat Credit as well as interest on delayed refund to appellant - It is settled principle that Justice need not only be done but it should be seem to be done - Although a specific plea has been raised by appellant but Commissioner failed to give any findings on said plea - The plea raised by appellant has a bearing on merits and therefore Commissioner ought to have gone into submissions of appellant and recorded a finding thereon - He jumped to the conclusion without recording any finding - Mere recording of conclusion without discussions on submission or case laws is no consideration and absence of reasons has rendered the impugned order unsustainable - Therefore, without going into the merits of appeal and without deliberating on other issues, matter is remanded back to Commissioner (A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh and to give detailed findings on the pleas raised by appellant: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: MUMBAI CESTAT