I-T - Proviso to section 56(2)(vii) qua stamp value as on date of agreement, though preceded by payment of part consideration by cheque, cannot be given effect to: ITAT

I-T - Assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous, merely because no inquiry was conducted by AO: ITAT

I-T - If assessee has duly disclosed availability of cash-in-hand at beginning of year and well before demonetization period, then same cannot be treated as unexplained: ITAT

I-T - If Explanation 2 to section 263(1)(a) has not been invoked in notice issued u/s 263, then same cannot be applied to pass order u/s 263: ITAT

I-T - Amount of interest paid on capital borrowed for purpose of business should be allowed as deduction while computing business income: ITAT

I-T - Subsidy received from Government of Maharashtra shall not reduce actual costs of assets u/s 43(1) for purpose of allowing depreciation u/s 32: ITAT

Cus - In absence of specific provision of Section 27, being made applicable in notfn 102 of 2007-Customs, time limit prescribed in said Section would not be automatically applicable to refund under notification: CESTAT

CX - Freight charged separately in sale invoices of excisable goods is not includible in assessable value of such excisable goods, consequently, no demand of duty on said freight would sustain: CESTAT

ST - Service tax amount collected by appellant from their client already stand deposited to Government Exchequer by electronic media company, therefore, provision of Section 73(A) cannot be invoked: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-260-CESTAT-DEL

S K Rasayan Udyog Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - The issue relates to refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notfn 102 of 2007-Customs as amended by Notfn 93/2008-Customs - The Delhi High in case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. 2014-TIOL-532-HC-DEL-CUS have held that refund claim of SAD is not time barred as no such limitation is prescribed under original notfn 102/2007-Customs - It was also held that period of limitation for first time cannot be introduced through subordinate legislation or notification - It was also held that limitation cannot start to run prior to crystalisation of right to claim refund - Said ruling has been repeatedly followed in catena of judgements including case of M/s. Gulati Sales Corporation 2017-TIOL-2477-HC-DEL-CUS and also in Premier Timber and Trading Pvt. Ltd. 2022-TIOL-1032-HC-DEL-CUS , wherein also, it was specifically held that in absence of specific provision of Section 27, being made applicable in said notification, time limit prescribed in Section 27 would not be automatically applicable to refund under notification - Adjudicating Authority is directed to grant refund along with interest @ 12% p.a., starting from the end of 3 months from date of filing of refund application: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-259-CESTAT-AHM

IDMC Ltd Vs CCE & CC

ST - The electronic media company namely M/s. Sahara (India) Pvt. Ltd are raising bill for broadcasting service to appellant and appellant in turn without providing any other service recovering the amount from their client along with service tax which was paid by electronic media - Demand was raised under Section 73(A) of Finance Act, 1994 on the ground that appellant have collected service tax from their client and not deposited to Government Exchequer - There is no dispute that service tax amount collected by appellant from their client already stand deposited to Government Exchequer by electronic media company namely M/s. Sahara (India) Pvt. Ltd. therefore, provision of Section 73(A) cannot be invoked - Tribunal in appellant's own case against O-I-O which is genesis of these cases set aside the demand - Following Tribunal's decision in said case, demand is not sustainable - Accordingly, impugned orders are set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-258-CESTAT-AHM

Triton Communications Pvt Ltd Vs CST

ST - The electronic media company namely M/s. Sahara (India) Pvt. Ltd are raising bill for broadcasting service to appellant and appellant in turn without providing any other service recovering the amount from their client along with service tax which was paid by electronic media - Demand was raised under Section 73(A) of Finance Act, 1994 on the ground that appellant have collected service tax from their client and not deposited to Government Exchequer - There is no dispute that service tax amount collected by appellant from their client already stand deposited to Government Exchequer by electronic media company namely M/s. Sahara (India) Pvt. Ltd. therefore, provision of Section 73(A) cannot be invoked - Tribunal in appellant's own case against O-I-O which is genesis of these cases set aside the demand - Following Tribunal's decision in said case, demand is not sustainable - Accordingly, impugned orders are set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT