I-T - Re-opening of assessment u/s 148 is invalidated where assessee is not granted opportunity of personal hearing: HC

I-T- Merely because interest of housing loan is claimed by son of the assessee in his computation, it is not enough to make him the owner of the property: ITAT

I-T- Employees' contribution deposited after respective due date cannot be allowed as deduction is applicable in case of an assessment farmed u/s 143(3) as well for intimation framed u/s 143(1) of Act: ITAT

I-T- PCIT rightly passed order u/s 263 as failure of AO to examine bank statement in correct perspective had led to under assessment of income :ITAT

I-T- Where taxes are shown to have been paid by the payee, no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act was called for in the hands of the payer for default in taxes deduction at source: ITAT

VAT - refund payable to assessee cannot be held up when time limit for assessment & re-assessment has lapsed & any such proceeding is not pending : HC

2023-TIOL-131-HC-AHM-VAT

Shubham Chemicals Vs State of Gujarat

Whether refund due to the assessee under the Gujarat VAT can be held up when time limit for assessment & re-assessment has lapsed & any such proceeding is not pending against assessee - NO: HC

- Writ petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-130-HC-AHM-VAT

Sarnar Buildtech Pvt Ltd Vs State of Gujarat

In writ, the High Court observes that the time limit for assessment & re-assessment under the Gujarat VAT Act had lapsed & no assessment or re-assessment was pending. Hence the Court directs that the refund amount claimed by the assessee be disbursed within 6 weeks' time.

- Writ petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-83-CESTAT-DEL

Tribhuvan Metal Industries Vs CCE

CX - The issue in this appeal is whether demand of duty have been rightly made for period July, 2010 to October, 2010, with penalty under Section 11AC of CEA, 1944 read with Rule 25 - The contentions of appellant have been accepted by Commissioner (A) to a large extent - Thus, more or less the appellant has done only test production prior to 11.11.2010 and they have been doing mainly trading of finished goods as the factory was not fully set up at the testing stage - Further, Revenue has taken contrary stand wherein in the first SCN it is admitted that appellant has started commercial production from November, 2010 wherein in second SCN, duty have been demanded from July, 2010 - Accordingly, impugned order is modified in a way that quantum of finished goods liable to duty for the period 01.07.2010 to 31.10.2010 shall be NIL and as the duty demand from July, 2010 to October, 2010, have been set aside, penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 25 is also set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-82-CESTAT-DEL

Dharmesh B Bhavsar Vs Pr.CC

Cus - The appellant is a trader engaged in trading of electronic goods including mobile phones - Admittedly the goods under dispute –Chinese mobile phones have been purchased by appellant from open market in Delhi - Such contention is also supported by statement and evidence led by transporter - Appellant have also produced documents of transport before Tribunal as well as the bilties that the goods were being transported from Delhi to Ahmedabad - Further, appellant had appeared before Customs Department and had claimed the goods - Admittedly, no other person has claimed the goods in question - In view of admitted town seizure, it was the onus on Customs Department to lead evidence in support of allegation as to smuggled nature of goods - No evidence has been brought on record in support of its allegation - Further, sale-purchase of goods in India is supported by levy of Sales Tax by Sales Tax Department of Rajasthan - Accordingly, Revenue is directed to release the goods forthwith to appellant within a period of 15 days - Further, appellant shall not be liable for payment of godown rent or detention charges or demurrage: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-81-CESTAT-AHM

Welspun Global Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - Assessee is in appeal against order of Commissioner (A) remanding the matter relating to refund of Service Tax paid for export of goods under Notfn 17/2009-ST - The admissibility of refund on Foreign Agent Commission has been examined by Tribunal in case of M/s. VST INDUSTRIES LTD. - In view of same, refund of Service Tax on Foreign Agent Commission cannot be denied - Second issue involved is rejection of refund in respect of CHA services where appellant failed to provide original copy of invoices - Assessee argued that they had produced this circular before lower authority but no findings have been given - Observations of Commissioner (A) are in contradiction with directions of CBIC - The order of Commissioner (A) on this count is set aside and matter remanded to original adjudicating authority with directions to follow the Circular of CBIC in this regard - The next issue raised in impugned order relates to denial of refund of Service Tax paid on Banking and Financial Services - Said refund has been rejected on the ground that assessee has failed to correlate the services availed with exports of goods - Assessee pointed out that they are engaged only in export of goods and there is no other business therefore, all services availed are in relation to export of goods - He pointed out that they had made a specific claim before lower authority - All the business of appellant was export of goods, therefore, no co-relation was necessary as all the services were availed for export of goods - Commissioner (A) has not taking note of this observation - If said assertion is correct then no co-relation may be required for claiming refund - However, since this fact has not been examined by lower authority, order on this account is set aside, matter remanded to Adjudicating authority: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT