I-T- Expenditure incurred for improvement of asset or title liable to be deducted from long term capital gain on sale of said asset: ITAT

I-T-Penalty shall not be imposable on the assessee u/s 271B of the Act when assessee has a reasonable cause for not getting the books of account audited: ITAT

I-T- Power of revision under Section 263 is rightly exercised where AO does not enquire into certain cash deposits pertaining to assessee & passes a cryptic order : ITAT

I-T- Donations given for compliance u.s 135 of the Companies Act, to the institutions mentioned in section 80G(2) of the Act are qualified for deduction under section 80G of the Act: ITAT

I-T -As per settled position in law, disallowance of payment made towards employees' contribution to PF & ESI is valid, where remittance is made after due date prescribed in respective Acts, even if made before due date of filing ITR : ITAT

I-T- No addition u.s 68 can be made when assessee-firm maintained all books of account during the year: ITAT

I-T- There cannot be any addition u/s 68 without specific reason and evidence to establish that amount is not explained : ITAT

I-T- Since value of edible oil brand in books of transferor company is NIL, any change in its value subsequently, has to be ignored : ITAT

I-T- Unexplained investment - Additions sustained as Assessee unable to give credible explanation for massive amounts deposited in bank account: ITAT

CX - Cenvat credit cannot be disallowed solely due to clerical errors in invoices, but where usage of the inputs is not disputed: CESTAT

ST - Tax demand raised after rejecting Chartered Accountant's certificate, on grounds of certificate being inauthentic - No evidence submitted to substantiate such claim - Case remanded for re-consideration: CESTAT

Cus - Refund application was not only maintainable, but also grantable as per provisions and within limitation of Section 27, as in their case duty was pronounced by Court to be wrongly paid: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-1033-CESTAT-KOL

HPCL Biofuels Ltd Vs CCE

CX - The Assessee has taken Cenvat Credit on various items during the period March 2010 to March 2011 - On the ground that they are not eligible to take the Cenvat Credit, Show Cause Notice was issued seeking reversal of Rs.75,30,788/-. After due process, the Adjudicating Authority allowed the Cenvat Credit of Rs. 10,20,387/- and Rs. 1,28,310/- - Being aggrieved by the fact that the demand of Rs. 63,82,091/- has been confirmed along with interest and penalty.

Held - Following the order of the CESTAT in CCE Vs. India Cement Ltd. and the judgment of the High Court in CCE Vs. India Cement Ltd. , the Cenvat credit in respect of MS Angles, MS Beam and other items is allowed, as is the Cenvat credit taken on inputs used for fabrication of High Mast Tower - In respect of Rs.10,146/- since the Invoice has been made in the name of HPCL, Mumbai (the Head office), this is only a clerical error and does not prevent the Assessee from taking the Cenvat Credit, since there is no dispute about their usage by the Assessee - In respect of Radha Krishna Transport, there is no necessity of the transporter to indicate the Service Tax Registration Number. As a matter of fact, in case of GTA services, the Service Tax has to be paid on Reverse Charge basis by the recipient of the service - Thus, the Cenvat Credit on 33,900/- is allowed - Hence the order seeking to raise tax demand along with interest and penalty, is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT

2023-TIOL-1032-CESTAT-KOL

Genuine Copier Systems Vs CC

Cus - The Appellant-company claimed refund of Special Additional Duty as per Notification No. 102/2007-Cus and such claim came to be allowed - While granting the refund claimed, the Department considered the Chartered Accountant's certificate produced by the Appellant, whereupon it was observed that such certificate was not authentic - Hence, recovery proceedings came to be initiated - Duty demand were raised - Hence the present appeal.

Held - There is no ulterior motive of the Appellant which can be made out, behind production of an inauthentic certificate from the Chartered Accountant - Moreover, the Appellant produced a fresh Chartered Accountant's certificate - Hence the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority, who is to verify the veracity of the certificate and allow the refund claim if all documents are found to be in order: CESTAT

- Case remanded: KOLKATA CESTAT

2023-TIOL-1031-CESTAT-AHM

Posco India Processing Center Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Present appeal in which a cross objection has also been filed by department, involves issue of whether refund of anti dumping duty wrongly paid by assessee and upheld as such by Tribunal in their own case, could be denied by department on the ground that refund sought under Section 27 cannot be given to party as Customs Act And Customs Tariff Act, 1962, and Customs Tariff Act, 1975 are different legislations and anti dumping law and provisional and final impositions are dealt with under Customs Tariff Act and therefore only refund as envisaged under Section 9A(8), of anti-dumping duty in enumerated cases can be granted - Section 9AA Customs Tariff Act deals only with those specified cases of refund where done the limitation is governed by Notfn 05/2012-Customs (Non-Tariff) - However there is no bar on refund arising otherwise in distinct situations to be allowed - In view of the fact that refund in this particular case arose due to pronouncement by court of law that anti dumping duty whatsoever was not payable by party - Situation is very much governed by Section 27 of Customs Act, due to same having been borrowed in Customs Tariff Act by Section 9A(8), which clearly indicates that even Custom Tariff Act envisages situations, where refund could arise even in anti dumping otherwise in listed situations - As legislature is not known to waste any words like "refund' as mentioned in Section 9A Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Tribunal find appropriateness in interpretation - Order of lower authority is not sustainable: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT