Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2021 2021 (6) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 121 to 140 of 1172 Records

• 2021 (6) TMI 1052 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
  

  Reversal of Input tax credit - non-payment of tax by the seller - HELD THAT:- When the physical verification was offered to be made by petitioner it was not accepted. It is stated that for the recovery of like nature from the buyer, the action can only be available in the exceptional circumstances.

  A perusal of the notice and recovery order dated 22.01.2021 would show that the issue raised by the petitioner needs consideration - List it in the week commencing 02nd August, 2021.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1051 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Constitutional Validity of Sections 65 (30a), 65(105) (zzq), 66 and 67 of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 - levy of service tax - composite contract - civil construction of materials supplied and labour - Contractors Association - aggrieved person or not - HELD THAT:- The Writ Petition was filed in the year 2010. Several developments took place with reference to the provisions of the amended Service Tax Act and now, the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act) has replaced the Service Tax Act. In view of the developments, further adjudication need not be undertaken with reference to the grounds - This apart, Contractors Association cannot maintain a Writ Petition and the aggrieved members with reference to the provisions of the Act alone is competent to file a Writ Petition and thus, this Court is of an opinion that the Writ Petition itself is not entertainable, on the ground that the writ petitioners/Associations cannot be construed as aggrieved person.

  The aggrieved members of the petitioners/Associations are at liberty to file the Writ Petition, if any grievances exist - Petition dismissed as not maintainable.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1050 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Validity of assessment order - recovery of tax dues - attachment of property - no opportunity was given to the writ petitioner before passing the order of attachment of his property - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the considered opinion that the order of attachment was set aside on the ground that no opportunity was provided to the writ petitioner. This Court directed the authorities to provide an opportunity and pass an order afresh. This will not disentitle the authorities to proceed with the matter on merits with reference to the tax arrears to be recovered from the assessee. This Court has not adjudicated the issues on merits. A simple direction was issued to provide an opportunity. Thus, for all purposes, the authorities competent are empowered to proceed with the actions in accordance with law and taking shelter on such direction issued in W.P.No.1305 of 2016, the petitioner cannot claim any exoneration from the liability regarding payment of arrears of tax.

  By litigating the order of attachment, the tax arrears as per the original assessment order cannot be exempted nor the petitioner be exonerated from the liability of tax to be paid. Thus, this Court is of an opinion that the said order passed in W.P.No.1305 of 2016 is for the purpose of providing an opportunity to the writ petitioner regarding the order of attachment. However, the order of attachment was passed based on the original assessment order and the petitioner claims that they had not received the original assessment order and therefore, the respondent issued a fresh notice in proceedings dated 22.04.2016, stating all the facts including the facts regarding the final assessment made by the competent authority and the order of assessment dated 28.02.2008. Thus, the petitioner was well within his knowledge about the order dated 28.02.2008 - the orders impugned states that the petitioner had no intention to file specific objection or appear for personal hearing or to pay the admitted tax as per their legal due to the Government. The findings in the impugned orders reveal that the petitioner was not only evasive, he had no intention to defend the case by availing the opportunity provided by the authorities competent. Contrarily, he is attempting to avoid payment of arrears of tax as demanded by filing litigation or other.

  This Court is of an opinion that the assessment orders impugned now under challenge in the present writ petitions are appealable orders under the provisions of the Act - this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petitions on merits - Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1049 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Seeking direction to respondent to issue 'G' Card License to the petitioner - conversion of “H” Card license holder to 'G' Card License to the petitioner - N/N. 41/2018 - Customs (N.T.) dated 14.05.2018 - HELD THAT:- It is clear that the respondent authorities have conducted the examination not with a view to upgrade the licence holder, but with a view to reject the upgradation from “H” to “G”. The object of any examination is to ensure that the qualified candidate is promoted to the next post. If an examination is conducted with the object to reject candidates, then the examination itself has to be struck down. In this case, the respondent had no right to conduct any oral examination. It is not provided in the Rules. The Rules stipulate that written examination alone must be conducted. Other State authorities have conducted only written examination and they have not called upon the qualified candidates to again appear for an oral examination.

  In the present case, for the written examination, the maximum mark was 100 and the qualifying mark was 50 and separately, for oral examination 100 marks were allotted as a maximum and the qualifying mark was given as 50. It is not known what is the nature of oral examination, which was conducted and how the candidates were assessed. Those details are absent in the counter affidavit. Except merely stating that only two candidates passed in the oral examination, no other specific details have been given in the counter affidavit. The counter affidavit has to be rejected - A direction is issued to the respondent, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, since he has passed the written examination, to appoint him as “G” card licence holder within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

  Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1048 - JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
  

  Validity of attachment of property - whether it is permissible for the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, acting under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, to ask the Tehsildar, Narbal, Budgam, Kashmir, not to issue revenue extracts vis-à-vis certain properties which, admittedly, have not been attached under Section 5 of the said Act and have, in fact, been left out of attachment order already made by and confirmed by the competent authority?

  HELD THAT:- In the instant case, except issuing the impugned communication dated 18.03.2020 to the concerned Tehsildar directing him not to issue revenue extracts of even those properties earlier belonging to Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali and his family members, that too, by an officer of the rank of Assistant Director, not designated in sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act, no other procedure contemplated by the provision of law has been followed. Instead it is consistently stated that the case is under further investigation and that mutations and registration of the properties at this stage in favour of third party may result in non-availability for attachments and may also jeopardise the ongoing investigation and siphoning off proceeds of crime - Assistant Director is no body either in terms of the provision of Section 5(1) of the Act or in terms of Rule 5 of the Prevention of Money-laundering (Taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties Confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2013, which prescribes the manner of taking possession of immovable property.

  The provision of law manifestly, without any doubt, mandates that there must be material to found the belief, meaning thereby that such material has to be in existence at the time such belief is entertained and at the time of making the provisional order of attachment. So, for making the order of attachment, there has to be evidence in existence. Conversely, if there is no provisional order of attachment made, it connotes that as at present there is no evidence in existence - The satisfaction about the ingredients essential to making the provisional order of attachment must relate to the present time, not to presumptive future.

  It is not permissible for the designated officer of Directorate of Enforcement, acting under the provisions of Act, to ask the Tehsildar, Narbal, Budgam, Kashmir, not to issue revenue extracts vis-à-vis the properties which, admittedly, have not been attached under Section 5 of the said Act and have, in fact, been left out of attachment - the impugned communication dated 18.03.2020 is not only antithetic to the essentials envisaged by the provision of law, but is also without jurisdiction, and, therefore, the communication in question is rendered wholly unwarranted and illegal. It, therefore, deserves to be quashed.

  Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1047 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Agricultural income or not - Profit from the sale of Jaggery - HELD THAT:- It is not the case of the appellant/assessee that the sugarcane in its original form could not be marketed by him. The conversion of sugarcane into jaggery is also not an essential process to make sugarcane marketable. In the decision in CIT Vs. H.G. DATE [1970 (2) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] as held that the sugarcane variety raised by the assessee was not usable in its natural form which inevitably forced the farmer to convert it into sugar or jaggery to market. As the basis for such a ruling that the sugarcane which was converted to jaggery still falls under the agricultural produce category to make it eligible for Income Tax exemption.

  Such instances are far and few and definitely the exception cannot be a rule - the assessment Officer in his order dated 18.11.2005 has categorically found that the present assessee did not state the circumstance under which the asseessee converted the sugarcane into jaggery. It is further observed by him that the assessee has incurred an expenditure of ₹ 1,70,000/- for manufacturing of jaggery while he incurred expenditure of ₹ 1,30,000/- towards cultivating sugarcane.

  As also seen that though manufacturing of jaggery can be done by a small scale by a group of farmers by extracting juice from fresh sugarcane which is filtered and boiled in wide yellow shallow iron pans with continuous stirring and also adding soda or other similar chemicals to get the jaggery, it is evident that the process of converting sugarcane into jaggery is not an essential one to make sugarcane marketable and there is more profit in making it as jaggery and selling. If the exemption of agricultural income is extended to the sale of jaggery, it would only facilitate many agriculturists to claim this exemption and carrying revenue loss to the exchequer.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1046 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Maintainability of petition - efficacious alternative remedy available to petitioners - Contractual dispute - completion or alleged completion of the Works or termination or determination of the Contract - Reference to the Dispute Resolution Board - Clause 71 of the General Conditions of Contract - HELD THAT:- Clause 71 provides for referring disputes first to the Disputes Resolution Board in case the contacts valuing to ₹ 10 crore or more, which would precede reference of dispute to the arbitrator under Clause 70 of the agreement. It is therefore Clause 71 which has to be first applied and the remedy available before the Dispute Resolution Board has to be first exhausted. We are not inclined to uphold the argument that Dispute Resolution Board could be constituted only if petitioner agreed and, therefore, since the petitioners have not given their consent, such Board could not be constituted. We are therefore persuaded to uphold the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents and direct the respondents to constitute a Dispute Resolution Board within a period of one month from the copy of passing of this order is produced before them and further direct that the Board shall, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the respondents, give its verdict, within a period of three months thereafter.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1045 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Levy of state tax on petrol and diesel - inclusion of petrol and diesel in the GST regime - Article 279 A (6) of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT:- It is directed that the Goods and Services Tax Council represented by the Special Secretary, Office of the GST Council Secretariat, New Delhi (respondent No.3) to forward Exhibit P2 representation dated 7.6.2021 to the Union of India, represented by the Finance Secretary, New Delhi, to take an appropriate decision within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of Exhibit P2 representation. Similarly, Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram (respondent No.4), to dispose of Exhibit P3 representation.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1044 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Attachment of property involved in money laundering - proceeds of crime - interpretation of statute - expression “reason to believe” which is different from “reason to suspect” - HELD THAT:- Section 5(5) of the PML Act, 2002 makes it clear that order of attachment of competent authority shall be provisional in nature and said authority is under a statutory obligation to file a complaint before the adjudicating authority within 30 days from the date of attachment - Section 8(1) of the PML Act, 2002 makes it obligatory for adjudicating authority to examine the complaint and if he has “reason to believe” that any person has committed an offence, it may serve a notice to said person calling upon him to indicate the sources of income, earning or assets. It may also issue show-cause notice to such person. After obtaining reply, the adjudicating authority under Section 8(2) of the PML Act is required to consider the reply, hear the aggrieved person and after taking into account all relevant materials, pass an order recording a finding whether all or any of properties referred to in the notice issued under sub-section (1) are involved in money laundering.

  A microscopic and conjoint reading of Sections 5 and 8 of the MPL Act leaves no room for any doubt that orders of attachment issued by invoking Section 5 is 'provisional' in nature. Thus, the attachment order passed by the competent authority and “reason to believe” therefor is also tentative / provisional in nature subject to confirmation by the adjudicating authority.

  If Scheme ingrained in Sec.24 and 26 of the Act of 1988 is compared with the PML Act, it will be clear that the Scheme is almost pari materia. For this reason also, it is deemed proper to hold that “adjudicating authority” is best suited and statutorily obliged to consider the validity of provisional attachment order and the case put forth by the present appellants - there are substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that despite specific pleading contained in para – 5.7 of the writ petition, learned Single Judge has erroneously held that there is no such foundation in the pleadings of the writ petition. The appellants can very well to raise this relevant ground before the adjudicating authority and the said authority shall be obliged to take into account this ground while taking a decision.

  The order of provisional attachment is not a final order and the appellants have a remedy to raise all the pleas including that of jurisdiction of attaching authority and discrimination before the adjudicating authority - Appeal disposed off.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1043 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Valuation - Tax levied on entire amount - reimbursement was not considered - break up of service charge received by the petitioner (reimbursable) not produced - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the issue involved is factual and there is a clear finding in the impugned order to the effect that break up of service charge received by the petitioner during the period in question have not been produced by them - The reply filed also does not contain the bifurcation of the amounts liable to service tax and the reimbursable expenses, which are excludible. In the absence of such details, the Assessing Officer cannot be faulted in having brought to tax the entire amount. It is thus appropriate that the petitioner file statutory appeals in order that these factual aspects may be looked into.

  In line with the decision of the Supreme Court in a series of judgments, viz., IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION [2021 (3) TMI 497 - SC ORDER], IN RE : COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION [2020 (5) TMI 418 - SC ORDER] and M/S. SS GROUP PVT. LTD. VERSUS AADITIYA J. GARG & ANR. [2021 (1) TMI 804 - SUPREME COURT] extending the limitation for filing of appeals, petitioner is granted 30 days time from today to file appeals. This is for the reason that the present Writ Petitions have been pending on the file of this Court since 11.01.2021.

  Such appeals, if filed within the period as aforesaid, will be taken on file by the Appellate authority without reference to limitation, but ensuring all other statutory conditions and considered on merits and in accordance with law - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1042 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Principles of Natural Justice - fruit pulp industries - classified under Entry No.102(2) of the IV Schedule to the A.P. VAT Act, 2005 or not - validity of assessment order and penalty order - HELD THAT:- The admitted facts in these cases are that aggrieved by the initial Assessment Order No.29664, dated 30.07.2016 imposing tax on the sale of goods @ 14.5% for the tax period April, 2013 to January, 2016 and also against imposing of penalty vide Assessment Order No.48458, dated 31.12.2016, the petitioner filed appeals Nos.83/2017-18 (CTR) and 84/2017- 18 (CTR).

  The Appellate Deputy Commissioner passed order dated 08.11.2017, a perusal of which shows that the Appellate Authority was convinced that the disputed goods sold by the appellant (writ petitioner) were used exclusively by the fruit pulp industries for the treatment of material i.e., fruits and food etc., and it cannot be considered as unclassified item, as they fall under Entry No.102 vide Sl.No.2 of the IV Schedule of the A.P. VAT Act, 2005 - the Appellate Deputy Commissioner remitted the appeal back to the Assessing Authority with a direction to verify the veracity of the documents that will be produced by the appellant before him and then pass fresh orders as per the provisions of APVAT Act, 2005 and the appellant shall produce the documentary evidence before the Assessing Authority covering the disputed turnover for verification as and when called for by him.

  It is clear from the appellate order that the Appellate Deputy Commissioner has fixed the rate of tax at 5% and remanded the matter only to verify the records to be produced by the appellant and to come to a conclusion with regard to actual turnover.

  Post remand scenario - HELD THAT:- Admittedly the 1st respondent issued notice dated 12.12.2017 calling the petitioner to produce relevant documents/information in support of their contentions within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Having received the notice on 15.12.2017, the petitioner filed some record relating to purchases and trading account for the years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 vide covering letter dated 27.12.2017 and has not filed further information.

  The impugned Assessment Order and Penalty Order is set aside with a direction to the 1st respondent to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner to his principal business address by giving reasonable time therein for filing records and there upon - petition allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1041 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Validity of attachment notice - recovery of arrears of sales tax - Deputy Tahsildar - proper authority to have issued the impugned notices or not - ownership of the properties - registration of the firm with the Registrar Firms has taken place post purchase of the property - Puducherry Revenue Recovery Act, 1970 - HELD THAT:- The provisions of Section 25 onwards deal with the service of demand prior to effecting recovery of arrears from sale/disposal of immovable property. Section 25 deals with service of demand prior to attachment of land and mode of service thereof. Section 26 stipulates the procedure when a defaulter neglects to pay despite service of demand, Section 27, with the mode of attachment of immovable property, Section 28 with the management of the property which is under attachment, Section 29 with notice to be given on the assumption of management and so on and so forth, the succeeding provisions not being relevant for the purpose of this writ petition - All powers from Section 25 onwards, which are to be exercised by a Collector or other officer empowered by the Collector would, by application of Section 42 of the PVAT Act, be carried out by the designated officers of the Commercial Taxes Department.

  Mr.Kumaran would attempt to state that the procedure under the PVAT Act is two pronged and Section 37(3), which refers to recovery of arrears as though it were an arrear of land revenue would permit officials of the PRR Department also to take action for recovery. This submission is misconceived in light of the specific mandate under Section 42, which states that for the purpose of recovery of any amount due under this Act, it is only the specified officers of the Commercial Taxes Department who have the requisite powers. As a consequence, the issuance of the present impugned notices by the Deputy Tahsildar is contrary to the provisions of the Act.

  Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1040 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Validity of order passed u/s 74(1) - Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - opportunity of hearing provided or not - HELD THAT:- This Court, notwithstanding the statutory remedy, is not precluded from interfering where, ex facie, it is opined that the order is bad in law. This is for two reasons-(a) violation of principles of natural justice, i.e. Fair opportunity of hearing. No sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to represent his case; (b) order of assessment passed ex parte in nature, does not assign any sufficient reasons even decipherable from the record, as to how the officer could determine the amount due and payable by the assessee. The order, ex parte in nature, passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, entails civil consequences.

  Impugned order set aside - petition allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1039 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Seeking pre-arrest bail - scheduled offences - first contention of respondent is that the offences under PML Act cause a serious threat not only to the financial system of the country but also integrity and sovereignty and for the offences under the PML Act, pre-arrest bail should not be granted - HELD THAT:- There cannot be any straitjacket formula for exercising jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and it all depends on the facts and circumstances of the case and where the fundamental right to personal liberty of accused is involved Courts cannot exercise jurisdiction mechanically - In the case on hand admittedly summons were issued to the petitioner in the year 2017 directing him to appear before the officials whereas the case of the petitioner is that he received summons in the year 2020 only and he mentioned reasons why he was not present before the officials and in support of the same the petitioner filed certain documents.

  Basing on the statement of one Ayush Goyal, who is nephew of the petitioner herein the petitioner was summoned and search was also conducted in the house of the petitioner during which certain articles were also seized and the petitioner's statement was recorded. Generally the Courts would hesitate to. grant anticipatory bail in case where there is reasonable apprehension that securing presence of the accused is difficult and there is every likelihood that he may influence witnesses and tamper the evidence - The respondents have not proceeded further against the petitioner and they have not taken any steps since 2017. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry as far as nephew of the petitioner is concerned basing on whose statement the petitioner was summoned is also completed.

  Taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner, where only summons were issued under Section 50 of PML Act in the year 2017, as the petitioner is not arrayed as an accused, the bail granted by learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum-II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, and the health condition of the petitioner and his wife this Court is of the view that this is a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail - petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Enforcement Case Information Report vide No. ECIR/VKSZO/03/2017 on the file of Directorate of Enforcement, Sub-Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam on condition of executing self bond for ₹ 50,000/- with two sureties for a likesum each to the satisfaction of Directorate of Enforcement, Sub-Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam.

  Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1038 - SIKKIM HIGH COURT
  

  Maintainability of appeal - refund of Education Cess and Higher Education Cess - covered under Section 35L or under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944? - HELD THAT:- At present learned counsel representing the Appellant-Revenue facing difficulty regarding agreed proposal made before the CESTAT of applicability of the judgment of the M/S. SRD NUTRIENTS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE GUWAHATI [2017 (11) TMI 655 - SUPREME COURT] and relying on the same the order was passed. Later the said judgment has been modified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/S. UNICORN INDUSTRIES VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [2019 (12) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT]. However, the counsel for the Appellant-Revenue requests for filing a petition for rectification before the CESTAT, the said prayer appears to be justifiable.

  This appeal, as requested by the counsel representing the Appellant-Revenue, is disposed of, with a liberty to take appropriate recourse of law for rectification of the order of the CESTAT.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1037 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - search u/s 132 - additions on account of assessment u/s 153A - HELD THAT:- This sub-clause contemplates that the assessee would be directed to pay a sum in addition to taxes, if any, payable by him, which shall not be less than , but which shall not exceed three times the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The quantification of the penalty is depended upon the addition made to the income of the assessee.

  The assessee has filed appeals before the Tribunal against these quantum additions in all these three years under consideration. The Tribunal vide order dated 27.12.2017 has remitted the issue of additions to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for de novo proceedings, therefore, no penalty at this stage is quantifiable or imposable. Since the issue of quantum addition has been remitted to the file of the CIT(A), we remit the issue regarding levy of penalty in these years as well to the file of CIT(A).

  CIT(A) after adjudication of the quantum additions, shall take a call as to whether penalty is to be imposed upon the assessee or not. In other words, the ld.CIT(A) shall decide the issue regarding levy of penalty after determination of the income in pursuance of Tribunal’s order in the above three years. Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1036 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Refund of service tax or GST - seeking for a remand for the reason that the disputes relating to the tax paid on the very same service are pending before different jurisdictional authorities - HELD THAT:- It is seen that though tax paid is in the nature of service tax and GST, it is paid on the very same service. If the matter is adjudicated by a common authority, such authority would be able to look into all aspects and give a correct decision in the matter. Further, though they had sent a representation dt. 19.11.2019 to the Principal Chief Commissioner to provide clarity as to which jurisdiction would apply for refund in their case, they have not received any response till date - it is seen that appellant had paid both service tax as well as GST. This has occurred during the transition period to new tax regime of GST. As abundant caution they have made such claim of refund as paid by the earlier company as well as the Merged/new Company of TVS Logistics Services. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order OIA No.103/2020 dt. 15.12.2020 has also been at confusion to resolve the issue and has remanded the matter to be kept pending till the appeals pending before CESTAT are decided.

  In the present case, without appointing a common authority for adjudication of these refund claims, the matter cannot be resolved since tax is paid under two different tax laws, i.e. Finance Act, 1994 and G.S.T. Act, 2017. Taking note of this fact, in the interest of justice, the Principal Chief Commissioner of GST and Central Excise of Tamil Nadu is directed to nominate a common adjudicating authority for denovo-processing of all these three refund claims.

  Appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1035 - ITAT DELHI
  

  Unverifiable purchases - assessee was asked to reconcile the difference in respect of receipts by the AO during the assessment proceeding - HELD THAT:- Merely maintaining the books of accounts and not giving a plausible explanation regarding the purchases, the same cannot be stated that it is identical to the earlier Assessment Year 2011-12. This issues are a factual centric and purchases may be different in each year. The matter is not identical to that of Assessment Year 2011-12 in context of each Assessment Year is a different Assessment Year and to prove that these are estimated additions has to be determined after the proper perusal of the evidence before the AO.

  Before the CIT(A), the assessee has submitted that books of account, purchase bills, wages/salary registers were produced but was not examined properly by the AO as per the contention of the Ld. AR. The assessee has not filed any paper book before us as to show which documents were before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for taking proper cognizance of all the records related to books of accounts, purchase bills, wages/salary registers etc. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1034 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  SSI Exemption - benefit of N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003 - power driven submersible pumps and motors thereof falling under Chapter Heading 8413 and 8501 of the Central Excise Tariff - appellant did not have the BIS certification - Suppression of facts - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- It is undisputed that the appellant manufactured products which were not eligible for exemption Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003, as amended, unless their products met the BIS standards. For the relevant period, the appellant had no certification from BIS and no such certificate has been produced till date. It has also not been established that an application for certification was pending before the BIS authorities and it has been issued subsequently. Therefore, it is not possible to agree with the contention of the learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant that the appellant was eligible for the benefit of exemption notification even though it had no BIS certificate, because the certificate was issued much later in 2014 which means that their products met the standards of BIS all through.

  Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- In this case, the demand was raised after the normal period of limitation. In order to invoke the extended period of limitation either fraud or collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or violation of Act or Rules with an intent to evade payment of duty must be established - The fact that the goods were not certified by BIS was in the exclusive knowledge of the appellant and they have not disclosed it to the Revenue. This shows that the appellant had an intention to evade payment of duty. It also establishes that the appellant has suppressed the information from the Department. It is only an audit and verification of records which got these facts to light.

  It has been recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order the transactions were recorded in the books of account of the assessee and all goods were cleared under an invoice. This also establishes that the appellant had no intention to evade payment of duty - the intent to evade payment of duty is missing and has not been established by the Revenue.

  Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1033 - ITAT DELHI
  

  Deduction u/s 11(1) denied - amount of unutilized grant in aid treated as income - HELD THAT:- The source of funding for the various projects run by the society is from government grants, state government grants, FCRA Funds/contributions from various countries and donations etc. The accounts of the assessee are subject to statutory audit and also audit by the Government Agencies like AGCR and by the auditors appointed by the funding agencies. These facts were not disputed by the AO. The grant/funds received from Government, various Ministries and grants from foreign contributions/funds are in pursuance to agreements/contracts and in terms thereof the amount of unutilized grants is liable to be refunded.

  AO while passing an order u/s 143(3) has wrongly considered the amount of unutilized grant in aid as income and disallowed on ad-hoc basis from the expenses incurred or funds applied for charitable purposes. AO has also wrongly denied deductions u/s 11(1) to the society which is not just and proper once, the assessee society has given the details of the unutilized grant in aid and expenses and fulfills the criteria prescribed under Section 11(1) - CIT(A) has taken a proper cognizance of all the relevant facts thereby calling remand report from the AO. The Assessing Officer has not given any adverse comment in respect of the remand report regarding the assessee’s contentions before the CIT(A). Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

  ---

1 ....34567891011........ 59