I-T - Service charges received from tenants are liable to be assessed as 'income from other sources' and not as 'income from house property ': HC

I-T - Decision taken by business entity to avoid certain business expenses does not entail that said business acquired enduring benefits or any asset yielding income: HC

I-T - Payment of Non-Compete Fee entails acquisition of rights & provides enduring benefit by protecting business from competition from a person who worked closely with such entity - Depreciation u/s 32 allowed on Non Compete Fee paid: HC

I-T - Revenue cannot adjust more than 20% of outstanding tax demand against refund payable to Assessee - Revenue directed to reverse excess amount recovered: HC

I-T - Additions framed on account of unexplained share application money were rightly set aside, where the ITAT verified the antecedents of all the entities which invested in the assessee-company : HC

I-T - If counsel for revenue has himself admitted that reopening was done mistakenly, impugned notice deserves to be quashed: HC

I-T- Following order passed by Tribunal for PY, disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) can be deleted as training of employees does not involve transfer of any technology : ITAT

I-T - If assessee did not deposit employees' contribution to employees' account in relevant fund before due date prescribed in Exp to section 36(1)(va), no deduction would be admissible : ITAT

Cus - Tribunal is considering the appeal within extended period prescribed under Statute, i e. Section 128 of Customs Act and there is no necessity to resort to provisions of section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay: CESTAT

CX - There is no difference in nature of clearance made to individual customer wherein valuation was admittedly done by appellant under Section 4 A and nature of clearance made to dealers, same is also to be valued under Section 4 A of Central Excise Act, 1944: CESTAT

ST - When assessee is not directly making payment to Foreign Bank towards any service provided by said Foreign Bank to Indian Bank, assessee is not liable to pay service tax: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-794-CESTAT-DEL

Rishmitha Impex Vs CC

Cus - Assessee is in appeal against impugned order, whereby Commissioner (A) rejected their appeal on technical grounds of being timebarred - The assessee submitted a medical certificate of Shri Vasudev Sachdeva, Proprietor of assessee company, which shows that he was suffering from coronary artery disease and had to undergo Angiography - Assessee is a sole proprietorship firm and Proprietor is aged about 70 years, therefore, the reasons given by assessee for delay are sufficient to be condoned, more so for the reason that delay is only of 27 days, which falls within the period of 30 days, as provided in Proviso to Section 128 (1) of Customs Act - Tribunal is considering the appeal within extended period prescribed under Statute, i e. Section 128 of Customs Act and there is no necessity to resort to provisions of section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay - Accordingly, reasons given by assessee for condonation of delay are adequate and enough to condone the delay of 27 days in filing the appeal - The ends of justice would be met, if appeal filed by assessee is considered on merits by Commissioner (A) and hence, matter is remanded back to Appellate Authority - Commissioner (A) may decide the issue afresh on merits - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: DELHI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-793-CESTAT-AHM

Gold Star Battery Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The issue to be decided is that the Lead Acid Batteries cleared by appellant whether the value thereof should be determined under Section 4 or Section 4 A of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Entire defence of appellant is on the basis of affidavit which was filed belatedly that Lead Acid Batteries cleared by appellant which is used for automobiles were correctly valued under Section 4A on the ground that they had supplied uncharged batteries and charging was carried out at the dealers' place which activity amounts to manufacture - Therefore, any goods cleared which is subjected to further manufacture should be valued under Section 4 and not 4 A - Other than affidavit there is no documentary evidence produced by appellant to establish the claim of appellant that battery was cleared uncharged and at the dealers' place the batteries were charged before selling to customers - This bench asked the appellant to produce the leaflet of product - From the leaflet also, it is not found that the batteries were cleared in uncharged form and subsequently it was charged by the dealer - This fact has been considered by Adjudicating Authority in detail - From the finding of Adjudicating Authority, it is clear that except affidavit there is no other evidence to show that the battery cleared by appellant was uncharged Lead Battery - Therefore, there is no difference in nature of clearance made to individual customer wherein valuation was admittedly done by appellant under Section 4 A and the nature of clearance made to the dealers - Therefore, clearance made to dealers is also to be valued under Section 4 A of Central Excise Act, 1944 - As regard the submission made by appellant on limitation, it is observed that they have not disclosed that whether the battery was cleared charged or uncharged - Moreover, the affidavit was also filed belatedly, this fact was not declared during statement of director recorded at the time of investigation - Therefore, appellant have suppressed the vital fact from the department about the nature of clearance - Extended period was rightly invoked - No infirmity found in impugned order, same is upheld: CESTAT

- Appeals dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-792-CESTAT-AHM

Dishman Pharmaceuticals And Chemicals Ltd Vs CST

ST - The issue involved is, whether the Foreign Bank charges, charged by Foreign bank to Indian Bank and the Indian bank collected as reimbursement from assessee is liable to be taxed under category of Banking and other Finance Services - If at all there is a service provider and Service recipient relationship, it is between the Foreign Bank and Indian Bank - Accordingly, in India the actual service recipient is Indian Bank for liable to pay Service Tax under reverse charge mechanism in terms of Section 66A of Finance Act, 1994 - Therefore, in any case the service tax demand cannot be raised from assessee being not covered under category of service recipient - Same issue in assessee's own case has been considered by Tribunal vide 2023-TIOL-179-CESTAT-AHM, wherein Tribunal observed that when assessee is not directly making payment to Foreign Banker towards any service provided by said Foreign Banker to Indian Bank, assessee is not liable to pay service tax - In view of said decision, it can be seen that issue is no longer res-Integra - Accordingly, demand is not sustainable, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT