I-T - Merely because particular scrip is identified as penny stock by income tax department, it does not mean all transactions carried out in that scrip would be bogus: ITAT

I-T- Provisions u/s. 54 of Act, being beneficial provision, should be interpreted liberally in favour of assessee seeking deduction: ITAT

I-T - Deduction u/s 80IA is allowed so long as profits & gains emanate directly from business itself & that income earned is inseparably connected with business carried on by assessee: ITAT

I-T- Any disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income received during the year: ITAT

GST - Four out of five pages is a reproduction of ground taken in appeal memo - Only in one paragraph reasoning given - Cryptic order - Matter remitted: HC

ST - Value of items supplied free of cost by service recipient to appellant is not to be included in value of mining services provided by appellant: CESTAT

CX - Since first appellant had transferred semi-finished goods for machining to second appellant without permission from Department, it is a procedural and technical lapse and same requires imposition of token penalty in terms of Rule 27: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-53-HC-ALL-GST

Sharp Print Ways Vs State Of UP

GST - Writ petition is filed assailing the cancellation of registration as well as order passed by the appellate authority - A SCN was issued on 10.02.2021 on the ground that the petitioner was not functioning/not existing at the principal place of business - Notice remained un-replied and the cancellation order came to be passed - Appeal was rejected on the ground that during survey, it was noticed that the petitioner was not running the business at the place mentioned in the registration - It was further noted that the rent agreement showed that the place of business had changed but no intimation was given to the department in this regard. Held: Order is cryptic -  It is not in dispute that GST return was filed by the Assessee since July, 2017 till November, 2020 -  It transpires that the order, which runs into five pages, actually takes note of the entire ground taken in the memo of appeal by the Assessee and it covers almost four pages - In one paragraph, the appellate authority has recorded it's reasoning stating therein that on the date when the survey was conduced, the Assessee was not running business at the place/premises registered - Apart from this fact, no other finding has been recorded by the first Appellate Authority on the ground which have been taken in the appeal - Appellate Authority, once it had taken note about the rent agreement, should have taken into consideration that the place of business of the Assessee has changed and an opportunity should have been given to the Assessee to place all material before it and the authority should have recorded findings before rejecting the appeal confirming the order of cancellation of registration - Order passed by the appellate authority is unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same is set aside - Matter is remitted to reconsider the appeal on merits - Exercise to be completed within one month - Petition is partly allowed: High Court [para 6 to 9]

- Petition partly allowed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-33-CESTAT-DEL

Associated Soapstone Distributing Company Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner

ST - Issue involved is as to whether value of items supplied free of cost by service recipient to appellant have to be included in value of mining services provided by appellant - This precise issue came up for consideration before Supreme Court in Bhayana Builders 2018-TIOL-66-SC-ST wherein it was observed that a plain reading of expression "the gross amount charged by service provider for such service provided or to be provided by him" would lead to conclusion that value of goods/material that is provided by service recipient free of charge is not to be included while arriving at "gross amount" for the reason that no price is charged by assessee/ service provider from service recipient in respect of such goods/materials - The decision of larger bench of Tribunal in Bhayana Builders and decision of Supreme Court are clearly applicable to facts of present case inasmuch as charge in SCN is that the cost of material supplied free of cost should be included in gross value of taxable service provided by appellant - Impugned order therefore cannot be sustained and is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-32-CESTAT-MUM

Sonak Shipping Services Vs CC

Cus - Appeal lies against revocation of licence under regulation 14 besides the forfeiture of security deposit and imposition of penalty under regulation 18 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 - Appellant had not verified the premises of importer in person - Undoubtedly, there is no prescription in procedure or instruction that the premises of client should be visited in person or verified appropriately - Norms for familiarity with background of client are mandated and it is the contention of appellant that these were conformed to - Enquiry proceedings restricted itself to technical aspect of allegation without endeavouring to ascertain if acts of omission or commission as 'custom broker' had, in fact, contributed to the act of smuggling - Appellant has, at the same time, been unable to evince due to discharge of obligation - The licensing authority has revoked the licence of appellant herein besides forfeiting security deposit and imposing further penalty - Considering the nature of lapse on the part of 'customs broker', ends of justice would be met by setting aside the revocation while allowing the forfeiture of security deposit and imposition of penalty to sustain: CESTAT

- Appeal disposed of: MUMBAI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-31-CESTAT-KOL

Mohata Coal Company Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & Excise

CX - Appeals filed against impugned order confirming imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- each under Section 25(1) of CER, 2002 for contravention of Rule 16B - There is no evidence on record to show that Wheels & Axles (Semi-finished products) sent to hired premises was with mala fide intention or appellant was in preparation to remove goods subsequently - The explanation given by appellant that since there were constraints in completing shift work of machining at their own premises and additional premise was hired, has to be accepted - As such, benefit of doubt is required to be extended to appellants - Since Rule 25 can be invoked subject to provisions of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, as a natural corollary, ingredients mentioned in Section 11AC are also required to be considered while determining question of levying of penalty under Rule 25 - Imposition of penalty on both the appellants is un-called for - However, since Appellant No.1, had transferred the semi-finished goods for machining to Appellant No. 2, without permission from the Department, it is a procedural and technical lapse on the part of appellants and same requires imposition of token penalty in terms of Rule 27, which provides a maximum penalty of Rs.5,000/- - Accordingly, penalty on both the appellants is reduced to Rs.5,000/- each: CESTAT

- Appeals partly allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT

2023-TIOL-30-CESTAT-AHM

J B Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The issue involved is that whether supply of medicaments to Government Institutions such as BHEL, Railway, Government Hospitals wherein on package it is mentioned 'NOT FOR SALE' and no retail price was printed is liable to be governed by Valuation Provision of Section 4 or Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 - The fact is not under dispute that medicaments have been supplied by appellant to institutions such as BHEL, Railways and other government hospitals and on package of goods it is stated as 'NOT FOR SALE' and no MRP was printed - From the decision of Tribunal in case of MEDLEY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. 2022-TIOL-1031-CESTAT-AHM along with various decision cited by appellant, issue is no longer res-integra and in appellant's case, value of goods is clearly governed by Section 4 of Central Excise Act and not under Section 4A therefore, impugned order is not sustainable hence the same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT