I-T- Assessee is not entity covered u/s 80P(4) and is entitled to deduction u/s 80P in respect of income from activities specified u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) : ITAT

I-T - Affidavits which are duly notorized hold legal identity which cannot be rejected merely on surmises without having any contrary material on record: ITAT

I-T- Since speculative loss can not be adjusted against business income, to find out real nature of transaction case can be remanded back AO - ITAT

I-T- Loss incurred on account of derivatives would be deemed business loss under proviso to section 43(5) and not speculation loss : ITAT

I-T - Re-opening of assessment can be sustained where based solely on report of Investigation Wing and not involving any independent application of mind by AO : ITAT

I-T- Where there is no pending assessment and no incriminating material found during search, no addition can be made in assessment proceedings u/s. 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act: ITAT

I-T- The date on which AO of the person other than the one searched assumes possession of the seized assets would be the relevant date for applying the provisions of Section 153A of the Act: ITAT

GST - Reply to notice, although received, has not been considered by respondent before passing order - Matter remanded: HC

ST - Sample of blood/tissue is not provided by recipient who seeks analysis thereon - rule 4(a) of PoPS Rules, 2012 not satisfied - service is export: HC

Cus - Transfer of knowhow and related technical assistance was not a condition for sale of the capital goods - No need to include knowhow fee in AV: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-404-HC-MAD-GST

Engineering Aids Vs STO

GST - Petitioner challenges the order passed u/s 74 on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice; that  even though they have sent a reply dated 25.02.2022 in Form GST DRC-06 to the show cause notice issued by the respondents dated 17.02.2022, in Form GST DRC-01, the same has not been considered in the impugned order dated 05.04.2022 by the respondents. Held:  Since it is made clear that the respondents have not considered the reply dated 25.02.2022, even though the same was received by them, the impugned order, dated 05.04.2022 has to be quashed and the matter will have to be remanded back to the respondents for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law - Impugned order, dated 05.04.2022 passed by the respondents is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded - Consequential, bank attachment notice issued to the 3rd respondent bank is also quashed: High Court [para  4, 5, 6]

- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-403-HC-KAR-ST

CCT Vs Medgenome Labs Ltd

ST - Revenue is aggrieved by the order passed by CESTAT allowing the assessees appeal -  Respondent M/s. MedGenome Labs Limited is a service provider and MedGenome Inc., USA is service recipient - The service which is provided by respondent to their foreign client is analysis report of samples; collection of samples, analysis thereon is conducted by appellant in India - Undisputedly, appellant is not receiving any goods from their foreign client  - The samples are blood and tissue extracted from human body - Appellant have neither purchased said goods nor is saleable - They paid the cost only for service for extraction of samples - CESTAT held that samples cannot be treated as saleable goods and for this reason, condition of Rule 4 of POPS Rules is not satisfied; that the place of provision of service is clearly the location of recipient of service, which is country of respondent's clients; that there is no dispute that the payment of such service has been received as a service provider in convertible foreign exchange; that the respondents have clearly satisfied the conditions required for treating the service as export of service; therefore, is not chargeable to service tax.

Held:   Undisputed fact is payment of services is in convertible foreign exchange -  One of the main contentions of the Revenue, that Rule 4(a) of the PoPS Rules will apply to assessee is untenable because, the Rule requires goods to be made physically available by the recipient to the provider - In the present case, no goods have been made physically available by the recipient to the provider - CESTAT has rightly recorded that assessee has clearly satisfied the conditions [in rule 6A] required for treating the service as export of service - Services provided by the assessee is an export of service under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, and thus cannot be held chargeable to service tax - Revenue appeal dismissed: High Court [para 8 to 11]

- Appeal dismissed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-267-CESTAT-DEL

Rajdhani Traders Vs CCE & CGST

CX - The issue arises is as to whether penalty has been rightly imposed on appellant firm and other appellant, being the partner of firm - Case of Revenue is that these appellants have passed on inadmissible cenvat credit by issuing fake invoices without actual supply of goods - The order of Court below is vitiated as it has not decided preliminary question or ground, that is non-receipt of SCN by these appellants - Adjudicating Authority is directed to record the service of SCN and thereafter, proceed to re-adjudicate the matter in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to appellants: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: DELHI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-266-CESTAT-AHM

CCE & ST Vs BT Patel And Company

ST - Issue involved is that whether assessee is eligible for abatement exemption Notfn 01/2006-ST in respect of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service when cenvat credit was availed but subsequently reversed - The Commissioner has allowed exemption on the ground that assessee have reversed the credit which was taken by reversing credit, condition of non availment of cenvat credit of Exemption Notification stand complied with - Commissioner has rightly dropped the demand - Moreover, on the very identical issue, Supreme Court in case of Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. 2007-TIOL-141-SC-CX held that even if reversal is made after removal of goods, exemption Notfn cannot be denied - Therefore, issue is settled in favour of assessee - Hence, impugned order is upheld: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-265-CESTAT-MAD

CC Vs Diabu Diamond Tools India Pvt Ltd

Cus - SVB had vide its order 25.03.2010 directed to accept the invoice value for assessment purpose and to add technology transfer fee of EURO 40,000 to the invoice value on importation of the new capital goods by the importer -  Revenue is in appeal against the order passed by Commissioner(A) who modified the order passed by Special Valuation Branch (SVB) holding that the technical knowhow fee is not related to the import of capital goods and there is no stipulation that it is a condition for sale.

Held:  From the relevant part of the collaboration agreement [sub-article 7.1], it can be seen that the transfer of knowhow and related technical assistance was not a condition for sale of the capital goods - Bench is of the considered opinion that the view of Commissioner(A) that the technical knowhow fee of EURO 40,000 need not be included in the AV of imported goods is legal and proper - No grounds to interfere in the impugned order - Appeal of department is dismissed: CESTAT [para 7, 9] 

- Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT