I-T-CIT(A) cannot complete assessment u/s 153A/144 when assessee company neither made any compliance nor submitted any details to substantiate its claim: ITAT

I-T- Books of accounts & vouchers are not required in return filed u/s 44AD; the same income cannot be taxed twice once in the hands of HUF and once again in the hands of the assessee: ITAT

I-T- Approval u/s.80G can be granted to assessee when assessee has given entire details of shares sold and received by the company towards its corpus for carrying out charitable activities : ITAT

I-T- Addition in respect of investments made in imports/purchases by assessee out of his capital/accounted income cannot be made in cases where source of investment has not been doubted by AO : ITAT

I-T- Face value cannot be taken into consideration for making addition on basis of difference between premium charged and premium determined by valuer : ITAT

I-T- Once facility is approved, the entire expenditure so incurred on development of R&D facility has to be allowed for weighted deduction as provided by Section 35(2AB): ITAT

I-T- Provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) are inapplicable to a company; provisions of Section 56(2)(x) which may apply to a company are applicable to AY 2018-19 and onwards: ITAT

I-T- Revisionary power u/s 263 need not be invoked where documentary evidence on record indicates that AO made sufficient inquiry into relevant issue: ITAT

I-T- No addition for Unexplained cash credit can be made as assessee has furnished all evidences proving identity and creditworthiness of investors and genuineness of transactions : ITAT

I-T-Provisions of Section 50C providing for tax on full value of consideration in certain cases, cannot be invoked in respect of certain property which is held as stock-in-trade : ITAT

I-T- Assessee did not participate in assessment proceedings despite service of several notices - case remanded for fresh hearing in interests of justice - nevertheless, cost of Rs 5000/- imposed on Assessee for needlessly expending time & resources of the Revenue: ITAT

Cus - Assessee is rightly held to have failed to verify the correctness of document thereby violating its obligation as a customs broker even forfeiture of security deposit has rightly been ordered: CESTAT

CX - The first appellate authority was correct in determining eligibility for CENVAT credit on products of iron and steel: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-1088-CESTAT-DEL

CC Vs Aradhya Export Import Consultants Pvt Ltd

Cus - The issue arises is as to whether the assessee, customs broker has violated Regulation 10(e) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 - The assessee was granted licence initially by Delhi Customs under Regulation 9 of CBLR, 2018 - Based on said licence he was issued licence by Mumbai Customs also to function at Mumbai ports - They had cleared 8 shipping bills for M/s Fine Overseas that too during a short period of August, 2018 to September, 2018 - M/s Fine Overseas is a firm existing only on papers which was created in name of Shri Sirajul Kallu - The exporter was not existing at address mentioned in IEC - The IEC and bank accounts were obtained for facilitating the fraudulent exports to avail ineligible IGST refund / drawbacks - From the RBI remittances report regarding accepted realization of exports by M/s Fine Overseas during relevant period it has come on record that remittance of Rs. 41,575 USD against one shipping bill was realized as against an amount of Rs. 2,10,14,836/- for 8 shipping bills - This is a case of not merely the violation of Regulation 10(n) but a case of fraud committed by CB and fraud vitiates everything - The cardinal principal which is enshrined in section 17 of Limitation Act is that fraud nullifies everything - This Tribunal in case of M/s Swastic Cargo Agency Limited has held that this being a case of facilitating the fraudulent exports carried out and it being duly proved during enquiry proceedings that exporter were non-existent - Assessee is rightly held to have failed to verify the correctness of document thereby violating its obligation as a customs broker even forfeiture of security deposit has rightly been ordered - In the light of obligations conferred upon assessee by Regulations CBLR, 2018 and the proven fraudulent act and conduct of assessee on record, it is held that suspension of his licence is quite a proportionate penalty - The order under challenge is upheld to this extent - Hence, the appeal stands party allowed and cross-objections stands allowed, consequently licence stands suspended: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-1087-CESTAT-MAD

Mainetti India Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

ST - The only issue to be decided is, whether appellant is eligible for refund on invoices which are not addressed to unit located in SEZ in terms of Notfn 15/2009-ST - Substantial relief should not be denied on technical grounds and when appellant had given evidence that inputs on which credit was taken were actually received and used in SEZ unit, although there was an error in invoice address, matter should have been verified before taking a final decision - Export benefits are special benefits given to exporters by Government to make goods more competitive in international market - Verification hence needs to be done in a trade facilitation mode - It is necessary that matter be sent back to original authority to verify the credit eligibility in terms of details given by appellant and decide the matter afresh - Refund claim remanded back to original authority pertaining to invoices not being addressed to unit located in SEZ - The lower authority shall follow the principles of natural justice and afford a reasonable and time bound opportunity to appellant to state their case both orally and in writing if they so wish, before issuing a speaking order in matter: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: CHENNAI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-1086-CESTAT-MUM

CCE & ST Vs ACC Ltd

CX - The assessee is a manufacturer of 'cement' and had availed credit of duty/tax paid on 'inputs', 'capital goods' and 'input services' during 2002-08 and holding this to be ineligible, the original authority upheld the proposals in SCN, which, in appeal, was set aside in toto by Commissioner (A) - The issue of eligibility of products of iron and steel used for, or in relation to, manufacture of 'capital goods' or for fixing of capital goods came to be excluded from availment of credit only with effect from 7th July 2009 and present dispute pertains to period prior to 19th August 2008 - The original decision of Tribunal in re Vandana Global Ltd ., confirming retrospective application of amendment, has since been discarded by High Court of Chhattisgarh - Accordingly, the first appellate authority was correct in determining eligibility for CENVAT credit on products of iron and steel - Insofar as the issue relating to 'dumpers' and supplies is concerned the contention of Revenue is that these become eligible only with a specific inclusion with effect from 28th June 2012 - The original authority was not correct in determining ineligibility for CENVAT credit on 'dumpers' and supplies relating to - The sole ground for denial of credit on 'annual maintenance contract' service is that these are not used directly in manufacture of excisable goods and that 'windmills' themselves are not finished products liable to duties of central excise - No merit found in appeal of Revenue which is dismissed: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT