|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1434 Records
-
2021 (10) TMI 1355 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - whether reassessment was made on mere change of opinion and the income was subjected to double taxation? - HELD THAT:- Re-assessment was made u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act upon notice being issued upon the petitioner. Although the petitioner raised various objections to the re-assessment notice, no revised return was filed by the petitioner, which according to the petitioner, was due to technical glitches. However, in course of re-assessment, no such issue was canvassed before assessing officer. Be that as it may, the assessing officer considered the objections raised by the petitioner-assessee and passed impugned assessment order. There is an alternative appellate remedy available before the CIT (Appeals).
We are of the opinion, none of the aforesaid exceptions arise in the facts of the present case. Petitioner-assessee was given repeated notices and adequate opportunity to represent his case before the assessing officer. Whether the Assessing Officer effectively dealt with the objections or not, are questions falling within the jurisdiction of the appellate authority and does not affect the inherent jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Thus, the order does not suffer either from inherent lack of jurisdiction or breach of principles of natural justice. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the order in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1354 - CUSTOMS AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, MUMBAI
Classification of devices - Echo Link - Link Amp - Auto - Flex - eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 57/2017-Cus., dated 30-6-2017, as amended - HELD THAT:- The device Echo Link is intended to upgrade the existing stereo system of the user with high fidelity streaming music and Alexa. The use of this device would enable a user to stream his preferred sound throughout the home or chosen rooms/areas. It is important to appreciate that Echo Link is to be connected to Echo speaker (input device) as well as multiple existing speakers (output devices). The primary utility of the device is to upgrade any stereo system with high-fidelity streaming music and Alexa, control music selection, sound and playback with compatible Echo device or the Alexa app; connect to stereo (any input audio device) and group with other supported Echo devices to play music throughout the home; provide multiple digital and analog inputs and outputs compatible with existing stereo equipment.
All the four Echo family devices under consideration in the present proceedings are voice command devices with multiple functions, including answering questions, playing music, reading newspaper/audio-books, providing traffic, weather and other real-time information and controlling smart devices. These devices respond to the names “Alexa”, “Amazon”, “Computer” or “Echo” as wake up words. These Echo family devices are capable of voice interaction, music playback, making to-do lists, setting alarms, etc. - these four devices merit classification under sub-heading 8517 62 90.
The specifications of Echo Auto and Echo Flex, as submitted by the applicant make it clear that they are not MIMO products. In view of this, it is held that these two devices would be eligible for the said exemption. Since Echo Link and Echo Link Amp are MIMO products, they are not eligible for the subject exemption. During the hearing held on 28-9-2021, the applicant has fairly conceded that they no longer are seeking exemption in respect of these two devices.
The Audio Receiver (Echo Link) having Model No. SXP16E, Audio Transceiver and Amplifier (Echo Link Amp) having Model No. K9Y29E, Media Transmission Device (Echo Auto) having Model No. BP39CN, and Echo Flex having Model No. C77A68 merit classification under sub-heading 8517 62 90 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975; and also that the devices Echo Auto and Echo Flex are eligible for exemption extended under the Notification No. 57/2017-Customs, dated 30-6-2017; as amended.
Application disposed off.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1353 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment - Non granting sufficient time to Petitioner - violative of the principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- As regards liberty prayed for to file a fresh Affidavit, we are not inclined to grant that liberty. This is because in our view, it would make no difference to the allegations contained in the Petition.
With the Assistance of Dr. Shivaram and Mr. Suresh Kumar, we have gone through the Petition and the documents annexed thereto. We have also considered the Assessment Order. It is true that between 20/05/2021 and 25/05/2021 there was a lockdown in Mumbai and 22/05/2021 and 23/05/2021 were holidays. Therefore, even with a superhuman effort, Petitioner would not have been able to file the huge number of documents called for in the short period granted and therefore, passing of the Assessment Order without granting sufficient time to Petitioner is certainly violative of the principles of natural justice. We are inclined to quash the Assessment Order dated 25/05/2021 which we hereby do. The matter is remanded for de novo consideration.
Dr. Shivaram states that response to the notice issued on 20/05/2021 will be filed within 2 weeks from today. Statement accepted. AO may consider the submissions made by Petitioner along with the documents and pass such order as he deems fit in accordance with law after giving a personal hearing to the Petitioner in accordance with the Rules.
We also clarify that we have not made any observation on the merits of the case. The time between 25/05/2021 till today is excluded for the purpose of calculating time limit for passing re-Assessment Order. Petition disposed with no order as to costs.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1352 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Financial Service Provider/Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited (SIFL) - SIFL has committed defaults of significant amount in relation to the financial debt availed by it from various financial creditors - Existence of Debt and dispute or not - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The documents placed on records prima facie prove that there has been a default and that the sum involved in such default is in excess of the threshold limit of one crore rupees prescribed at present under section 4(1) of the Code. Moreover, since the sanction letters are in the year 2018 onwards and date of default from November 2021, the petition is not hit by limitation.
This is a fit case for initiation proceedings under section 227 read with rule 5 of the Rules ibid, since the debt in question qualifies as financial debt under section 5(8) read with section 3(11) of the Code - The Petition made by the Reserve Bank of India is complete in all respects as required by law. It clearly shows that the Respondent/FSP is in default of a debt due and payable, and the default is more than the minimum amount as stipulated under section 4(1) of the Code. Therefore, the default stands established and there is no reason to deny the admission of the Petition.
Petition admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1351 - ITAT BANGALORE
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - application of turnover filter - HELD THAT:- Companies functionally comparable cannot be excluded only on the basis of high turnover - Companies whose turnover in the current year is more than ₹ 200 Crores should be excluded from the list of comparable companies - RPT filter has to be applied adopting the threshold limit of 15%.Companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected.
Merely pointing out that there is a substantial increase in value of intangible assets, the Assessee cannot seek to exclude company from the list of comparable companies, unless the Assessee is able to show that the presence of intangibles is owing to factors which can affect the functional comparability of company with the Assessee.
ALP determination - as per assessee international transaction in question would be at Arm's length when benchmarked with its transaction with unrelated parties on the basis of the internal TNMM - HELD THAT:- We find that this issue has been raised by the Assessee for the first time before the Tribunal. The Revenue authorities did not have any occasion to examine this issue and therefore we deem it fit and proper to remand this issue to the AO/TPO for consideration afresh and in the light of the relevant applicable statutory provisions.
Determination of ALP by construing the delayed realization of receivable by the Assessee from its AE as a separate international transaction and determining ALP of such delayed receivables - HELD THAT:- Non-charging or under- charging of interest on the excess period of credit allowed to the AE, for the realization of invoices amounts to an international transaction and the ALP of such an international transaction is required to be determined. In view of the above observations. the reliance placed by the ld. counsel for the assessee on earlier decisions cannot be accepted. Similarly, Considering the above discussion, it is held that deferred trade receivable constitutes international transaction.
Having concluded that deferred trade receivables constitute international transaction, we come to the computation of the ALP of the international transaction of 'debt arising during the course of business.' This has two ingredients, viz., the amount on which interest should be charged and the arm's length rate at which the interest should be charged.
We are of the view that the issue with regard to determination of ALP in respect of the international transaction of giving extended credit period for receivables should be directed to be examined afresh by the AO/TPO on the guidelines laid down in the decision referred to in the earlier paragraph, after affording Assessee opportunity of being heard. As held in the aforesaid decision the prime lending rate should not be considered and this reasoning will apply to adopting short term deposit interest rate offered by State Bank of India (SBI) also. The rate of interest would be on the basis of the currency in which the loan is to be repaid. We hold and direct accordingly. All issues on determination of ALP of the transaction are kept open.
Appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1350 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- It is seen that the agreement in question is dated 26th April, 2016 with the time for completion being 11 months. Clearly, therefore, any claim now raised arising from the said contract would be time barred. It is, therefore, not possible to accede to the prayer of the Petitioner.
The writ petition is dismissed.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1349 - ITAT MUMBAI
TP Adjustment - assessee’s contention that even if the comparable Uncontrolled Price Method is applied for determining the arm's length price then the comparability analysis should consider an adjustment of at least 50% vis–a–vis brokerage charged to independent clients - HELD THAT:- As the issue for our adjudication has been decided by the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2002–03 wherein the issue has been decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
Comparability analysis on the basis of overseas and domestic independent clients - The issue for our adjudication has been decided by the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2002–03, wherein the issue has been decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
Disallowance of remuneration under section 40A(2) - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case payment made to employee is within the limits prescribed by Companies Act and satisfies the test of reasonableness. We have noted that the AO, while making the disallowance disregarded the approval granted by central government under the statutory provisions of Companies Act. The AO made addition / disallowance without considering the qualification, experience and reasonableness with regard to his past and position in the field of capital market.
Disallowance of notional interest on deposits u/s 40A(2) - HELD THAT:- As in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2002–03, in assessee’s own case for the assessment year wherein the issue has been decided against the Revenue held held that where assessee paid lease rent to a group company in respect of wind farm taken on lease, since lease rent was fixed in accordance with formula provided by Indian Renewable Energy Development, a Government of India Company, impugned disallowance made by Assessing Officer under section 40A(2)(b) was to be set aside.
Disallowance pertaining to adjustment under the head payment of overseas support fees - HELD THAT:- Issue decided in favour of assessee as relying on own case.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1348 - SUPREME COURT
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - time limitation - acknowledgement under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - HELD THAT:- It was held in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited [2021 (4) TMI 753 - SUPREME COURT] that There can be no doubt whatsoever that the appellant has been completely remiss and deficient in pleading acknowledgement of liability on the facts of this case. However, given the staggering amount allegedly due from the respondents, we afford one further opportunity to the appellant to amend its pleadings so as to incorporate what is stated in the written submissions filed by it before NCLAT, subject to costs of Rs 1,00,000 to be paid by the appellant to the respondents within a period of four weeks from today.
Subject to the appellant being put to terms, the course adopted by this Court in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited [2021 (4) TMI 753 - SUPREME COURT] should be followed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is remanded back and will be restored back to file.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1347 - SC ORDER
Freezing of Bank Accounts of petitioner - HELD THAT:- In order to facilitate fund availability, in view of the plea of the accused that only 67 accounts out of 241 are de-freezed, the other accounts are to be de-freezed as already directed for the benefit of the investors - Considering the efforts being put in by learned ASG, the FSL to set up a dedicated team to assist the learned ASG in this behalf and if necessary, that can be through a mode of outsourcing.
List on 19.01.2022.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1346 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI BENCH
Seeking impleadment of applicant as respondents - verification of claims of creditors - it is submitted that although the applicants are not added as a party in those applications, but during the course of hearing, several misleading statements were made by the Ld. Counsels for the ACRE and ITSL about the applicants - HELD THAT:- The conjoint reading of Section 18 & 25 of IBC shows that the duty of the IRP is to receive and collate all the claims submitted by creditors to him, pursuant to the public announcement made under sections 13 and 15 of IBC, 2016. Whereas the duty of the RP is to maintain an updated list of claims, which means, if the IRP has received and collated all the claims submitted by the creditors to him those claims can be updated by the RP as the duty cast upon the RP under Section 25(2)(e) of IBC, 2016, is to maintain an updated list of claims - When the different classes of creditors have submitted their claims as well as the proof of claims as referred to in Regulation 12 of IBBI Regulations, then the IRP or the RP is authorized under the law to verify the every claim within seven days from the last date of receipt of the claim, and thereupon maintain a list of creditors containing names of creditors along with the amount claimed by them and the amount of their claims admitted.
It is further seen that as per Regulation 13 (2) of the IBBI Regulations, the IRP or the RP shall make a list of creditors available for inspection by the persons, who have submitted proofs of claim or by the members, partners, directors and guarantors of the corporate debtor - Since, the authorized representative is appointed under Section 21(6A) of the IBC, 2016 and his rights and duties are defined under Section 25A of IBC, 2016 referred, it is observed that under Section 21(6A)(b), the authorized representative is appointed, if the class of creditors exceeds the number specified under the law.
Thus, the authorized representative shall have no role in receipt or verification of claims of creditors of the class, he represents. If the authorized representative shall have no role in receipt or verification of claims of creditors of the class, he represents, then the association or the allottees who come under the class of creditors, shall also have no role in receipts or verification of claims of creditors rather it is the IRP or the RP, who is to decide the claims submitted by the creditors.
The ACRE and ITSL have filed the applications against the rejection of their claims by the IRP - the applicants in both the IAs under consideration are not a necessary party to the respective proceedings.
Application dismissed.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1345 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Jurisdiction - power of CESTAT, having been constituted under the Customs Act, 1962, can look into and decide refund claims under C.G.S.T. upon the introduction of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Refund of amount of service tax paid - HELD THAT:- The transfer of CENVAT Credit lying as balance as input credit is purely a provision of the C.G.S.T. Act and CESTAT has no role in interpreting or applying the said provisions. We find that there is a clear divergence taken in this decision. In many decisions of this Tribunal, this Tribunal has considered the refund matter which was under Section 142(3) of the C.G.S.T. Act and decided the appeal. Therefore, there are nothing wrong in referring the matter by the Learned Single Member to the Larger Bench - the reference made by the Learned Single Member is correct and legal.
Whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal in question? - Section 142(3) of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- As per Section 142(3), only those claims in which the amount of CENVAT Credit, duty, interest was paid in the existing law, i.e., the Central Excise Act, 1944 and and the Finance Act, 1994, shall be disposed of in accordance with the same Acts. In the present case, the appellant had paid the Service Tax subsequent to the introduction of the C.G.S.T. Act and thereby, the CENVAT Credit got accrued to the appellant. In this case, it is not the refund of Service Tax paid under the existing law whereas the refund sought for by the appellant is in respect of the CENVAT Credit which accrued after the introduction of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 - Moreover, there is no provision either in the Central Excise Act or the Finance Act for refund of CENVAT Credit. The refund of CENVAT Credit was provided under the C.G.S.T. Act only. Therefore, the present claim is not arising out of the existing law and hence, the same cannot be disposed of under the existing law.
To have a consistent view and uniform legal position, in the interests of justice, this matter must be decided by a Larger Bench. The question to be answered by the Larger Bench is referred as under:
“Whether a refund order passed under Section 142 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is appealable before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal or otherwise?”
The Registry is directed to place this matter before the Hon’ble President for constituting a Larger Bench to decide the above question of law.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1344 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Suit for specific performance of a Share Purchase Agreement - Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act 2013 - HELD THAT:- It cannot be that if a court does not pass an order within a specific time, then the contract falls apart. If this is the submission, and it seems to me to be precisely the formulation of the Defendants, it is found very difficult to accept. It would amount to placing responsibility for the failure of the contract on the court or the tribunal in question. The provision in clause 4.2(b) must be read reasonably, having regard to the conditions in our tribunals.
This public interest, whatever it be, must be subordinated to the much larger and wider public interest that dictates that contracts, once executed, have sanctity. They cannot so easily be allowed to slip their moorings. It is extremely difficult to accept the proposition that a contract, though solemnly entered into, can be given short shrift because a particular order of a Tribunal has not been obtained by a particular date or within a particular time. If parties are required to reasonably extend that time to enable that Tribunal or Court to pass a needed order, they must make the attempt to impress on that tribunal the fact that it what is sought is not contentious, that there is pressing urgency, and that both sides might conceivably be very greatly prejudiced if an order is not made. But that is all that needs - and needed - to be done.
The NCLT can hardly be expected to divine the finer details of a contractual pre-condition unless something more is done than mere filing - It cannot be accepted that ILFS’s refusal to extend the LSD is justifiable on the ground that the NCLT order is not received.
Application disposed off.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1343 - ITAT DELHI
Disallowance u/s 36(1)(viii) - interest on housing loans - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2021 (8) TMI 1321 - ITAT DELHI] assessee stated that 62.75% in on account of interest on long term housing loan and worked out applying that percentage on the total business income calculated pertaining to long term housing loan and computed deduction @20% of Rs. 10.99 crores as deduction
AO changed the above ratio from 62.75 % to 55.89% as he considered the total receipt of business for the purpose of working out proportion. In the present case the methodology adopted by the assessee is consistently followed for last eight years. Same was accepted by the revenue without any objection. The only issue is with respect to how the profit of the business for the purpose of long term housing finance shall be worked out. The only issue is that assessee is computed with respect to the total income with respect to the interest income whereas the Id AO has applied the above ratio to the total receipt. When the method has been consistently accepted for the above year we do not find any reason to defer from that. In view of this we do not find any infirmity in allowing the assessee claim of deduction u/s 36(1 )(viii) of the Act applying the ratio of 62.75%. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1342 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of Bail - wrongful availment of input tax credit - offence(s) under Sections 132(1)(a),(c),(h),(2) read with Section (5) of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Considering the material on record and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the period of custody and the fact that proceedings may take long time and also the fact that offence is compoundable by Commissioner and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed.
Petitioner be admitted to regular bail subject to satisfaction of the trial Court.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1341 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Benefit of exemption - Import of goods Automatic/Semi-automatic winding Machines, Automatic Testers for manufacture of Plastic Film Capacitors - eligibility for exemption under N/N. 25/2002-Cus. Dated 1.3.2002 as amended - case of the department is that as per the heading of the exemption notification i.e. Exemption to capital goods imported to use by IT/Electronic industry, since the appellants factory is not a IT/Electronic industry therefore as per the heading of the notification, they are not eligible for exemption - HELD THAT:- The exemption was denied merely on the basis that heading of the notification given by the publisher is of “Exemption to the goods of IT/Electronic industry” and also on the basis of budget speech. It is found that the heading is not a part of the notification however, the goods imported by the appellant is squarely covered under the table given in the notification and also the finished goods wherein the same is also clearly given in the table accordingly, the appellant is entitled for exemption.
As regard the budget speech, the budget speech is also not a part of the notification, notification has to be read without putting anything either from the budget speech or any heading given by the publisher therefore, so long the goods are undisputedly covered under the table it is eligible for exemption notification 25/2000-Cus.
The appellant is entitle only for exemption notification - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1340 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
Seeking liquidation of the Corporate Debtor - the CIRP period has expired and no resolution plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) - HELD THAT:- Section 33(1) of the Code enjoins the Adjudicating Authority to pass an order for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor where before the expiry of the insolvency resolution process period or the maximum period permitted for completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process does not receive a resolution plan under sub-section (6) of section 30.
Application filed by Mr. Mr. Pankaj Dhanuka, RP of Corporate Power Limited, the Corporate Debtor, is allowed and the Corporate Debtor is ordered to be liquidated in terms of section 33(2) of the Code read with sub-section (1) thereof - application allowed.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1339 - ITAT BANGALORE
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - HELD THAT:- Infosys Ltd. - As the assessee had sought for exclusion of only Infosys Limited based on the turnover filter. We find that the turnover of Infosys Limited is Rs.43,300 crore, which is thousand times more than the turnover of the assessee-company. Therefore Infosys Limited cannot be compared to the assessee, in view of the judicial pronouncements cited supra. Hence, we direct the AO / TPO to exclude Infosys Limited from the list of comparables.
For eight other comparables, we find that the assessee before the Income Tax Authorities has not sought for exclusion of the same on turnover filter. Therefore, the eight companies sought to be excluded on turnover filter are restored to the files of the AO / TPO. The AO / TPO is directed to verify the turnover of these eight companies and exclude the same from the list of comparables if the turnover of each company had exceeded Rs.200 crore for the relevant assessment year.
Infobeans Technologies Limited - In the instant case, the assessee is a captive service provider to its AEs and the concerned assessment year is 2015-2016. The Tribunal in the case of Zynga Game Network India Private Limited (2021 (4) TMI 208 - ITAT BANGALORE] was considering a case of an assessee, who is also a capital service provider to its AEs and was concerned with identical assessment year, namely, A.Y. 2015-2016. Therefore, following the order of the Tribunal in the case of Zynga Game Network India Private Limited (supra), we direct the AO / TPO to exclude Infobeans Technologies Limited from the list of comparables. It is ordered accordingly.
Inteq Software Private Limited - On perusal of the abridged balance sheet of Inteq Software Private Limited, it is clear Inteq Software Private Limited is involved in multifarious services such as application services, software testing, data warehousing, EDI, BPO, staffing etc. However, we noticed from the AO / TPO and the DRP’s order, it is stated that Inteq Software Private Limited is only involved in software development services and the entire turnover is from such service. It is not clear how DRP had arrived at such a conclusion. The profit and loss account of Inteq Software Private Limited is not on record. Therefore, we are not in a position to verify the veracity of the findings of the AO / TPO and the DRP, which is contrary to the narration in the balance sheet of Inteq Software Private Limited. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore this issue to the files of AO / TPO. The AO / TPO is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide whether Inteq Software Private Limited is to be included in the comparable list of companies.
Aspire Systems (India) Private Limited - On perusal of the balance sheet of Aspire Systems (India) Private Limited, it is seen that the said company is an outsourced technology service company. It is also stated in the balance sheet that there is income from power generation. Since the profit and loss account of the assessee company is not enclosed, we are not in a position to examine the DRP’s statement that Aspire Systems (India) Private Limited is a pure software development service provider. Therefore, in the facts of the instant case, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue to the files of the AO / TPO. The AO / TPO is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and take a decision whether Aspire Systems (India) Private Limited can be a comparable.
Kals Information Systems Limited, E-Zest Solutions Limited, and CGVAK Software & Exports Limited - As it is clear that the above three companies were accepted as comparable, however, in the final list of comparables, the same was omitted to be included. Hence, we direct the AO / TPO to include the same in the final list of comparables for determination of arm’s length price of the international transaction.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1338 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Provisional attachment of property - time limitation - this writ petition filed on 19th August, 2021 i.e. almost after seven months though it is the case of the petitioners that they had made a representation on 2nd February, 2021, which was rejected by the respondent concerned on 14th June, 2021 - Section 83 of the GST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It is found that already more than seven months have been passed after passing the impugned order, in my view there is no scope of any interim order at this stage.
Matter to appear in list for final hearing four weeks after the Puja vacation.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1337 - ITAT DELHI
Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 - appeal by the Revenue is directed against order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment year 2012-13 - assessee seeks permission to treat the appeal as deemed to be withdrawn under the provisions of Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 - HELD THAT:- As the Form No. 3 has been issued in the case of the assessee, the appeal of the Revenue is deemed to be withdrawn. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. However, if the tax arrears in dispute is not ultimately paid, the Revenue shall be at liberty to file application for recall of the order and the Tribunal shall consider such application appropriately as per law.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1336 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
CENVAT Credit - input services - Business Auxiliary Service - GTA - Rent-a -cab - Insurance Agency Service - Courier Service - Renting of Immovable Service - Maintenance & Repair Service - and Manpower Supply Service - HELD THAT:- The appellant in respect of cenvat credit on Rent-a Cab, Insurance Agency Service and Renting of Immovable Service was admittedly reversed for the period 01.04.11 onward. Therefore, the Cenvat Credit reversed by the appellant is maintained.
As regard other services all these services have been allowed as input services - all the above services used by the appellant for their overall business activity are admissible input service therefore, the credit in respect of the aforesaid services are allowed except credit reversed by the appellant.
Reliance can be placed in the case of M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. VERSUS C.C.E. KUTCH (GANDHIDHAM) [2019 (2) TMI 1487 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] for GTS Service, M/S. FOXTEQ SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF G.S.T. & CENTRAL EXCISE [2019 (5) TMI 375 - CESTAT CHENNAI] for Business Auxiliary service and M/S UNICURE INDIA LTD. VERSUS C.C.,C.E. & S.T., NOIDA [2017 (3) TMI 706 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] for manpower services.
Penalties - HELD THAT:- Taking into consideration the overall facts of the cases, there is no malafide on the part of the appellant, therefore the penalties are also set aside.
Appeal allowed in part.
........
|
