|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1563 Records
-
2024 (8) TMI 1523
Effect of Notification - applicability of integrated tax - whether N/N. 36/2021-Customs dated 19.07.2021 the Amendment Notification issued under section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 the Customs Act amending N/N. 45/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017 the Exemption Notification would have retrospective effect from the date the Exemption Notification was issued on 30.06.2017? - HELD THAT:- Section 25(1) of the Customs Act empowers the Central Government to grant exemption from payment of duty by issuing a Notification in the Official Gazette. It is in exercise of the powers conferred under section 25(1) of the Customs Act that the Exemption Notification dated 30.06.2017 was issued by the Central Government. The said Exemption Notification exempts the goods falling within any Chapter of the First Schedule to the Tariff Act and specified in column (2) of the Table when re-imported into India, from so much at the duty of customs leviable thereon which is specified in the First Schedule, and the integrated tax, compensation cess leviable thereon, respectively under sub-sections (7) and (9) of section 3 of the Tariff Act, as is in excess of the amount indicated in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table.
The main body of the Exemption Notification refers not only to duty of customs leviable thereon which is specified in the First Schedule to the Tariff Act, but also to integrated tax and compensation cess, but column (3) of the Table accompanying the main Notification against serial number 2 refers to only ‘duty of customs’ on the fair cost of repairs carried out with insurance and freight charges.
The decision of the Tribunal in InterGlobe Aviation [2020 (11) TMI 151 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] resulted in the issuance of the Amendment Notification dated 19.07.2021 by the Central Government. This Amendment Notification specifically mentions that it was being issued under section 25(1) of the Customs Act. As noticed above, two amendments were made; the first amendment is that against serial numbers 2 and 3, in column (3), for the words ‘Duty of customs’, the words ‘Said duty, tax or cess’ be substituted; and the second amendment is by way of insertion of clause (d) in the Explanation, which provides that on recommendation of the GST Council for removal of doubt, it is clarified that the goods mentioned at serial numbers 2 and 3 of the Table, are leviable to integrated tax and cess, and the exemption, under said serial numbers, is only from the amount of said tax, cess and duty over and above the amount so calculated.
Whether the Exemption Notification dated 19.07.2021, that was issued under subsection (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, can have retrospective effect? - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the Exemption Notification, before its amendment on 19.07.2019, provided for payment of ‘duty of customs’ on the repair value of the re-imported goods. The Tribunal, in the decision rendered on 02.11.2020 in InterGlobe Aviation, held in very clear terms that the phrase ‘duty of customs’ referred to in the condition against serial number 2 would not include integrated tax. By the Amendment Notification dated 19.07.2021, the phrase 'duty of customs' has been substituted with the phrase ‘Said duty, tax or cess’. The effect of the amendment would be that basic customs duty, integrated tax and cess would be required to be paid on the repair value of the re-imported goods as a condition of grant of exemption. It is, therefore, clear that the requirement to pay customs duty and integrated tax on the repair value of re-imported goods preamendment and post amendment is not the same - It cannot, therefore, be urged that despite the creation of a new liability to pay integrated tax under the Amendment Notification, the amendment would still be retrospective in nature.
What follows from the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts is that an Explanation to a provision may either clear the ambiguity in the main provision or it may add and widen the scope of the main provision. A provision is said to be clarificatory if a consideration of the meaning of the provision to which the Explanation has been added when compared to the meaning given by the added Explanation remains the same. However, if the meaning changes, it cannot be said to be clarificatory in nature. If the Explanation is clarificatory in nature, it may be given retrospective operation, but if it changes the law and alters or widens the scope of the main provision, it cannot be given retrospective operation.
In the present case, though Explanation (d), inserted by the Amendment Notification dated 19.07.2021, proceeds to state that ‘for removal of doubts’ it is clarified, but the fact is that it imposes integrated tax, which otherwise prior to the introduction of the Explanation was not leviable under the unamended Exemption Notification dated 31.06.2017. It cannot, therefore, be said to be retrospective in nature, more so when neither clause (i) nor clause (ii) specifically mentions that it is retrospective in nature - in terms of section 25(4) of the Customs Act, it would come into force on the date of its issue by the Central Government for publication in the Official Gazette.
Though it is correct that for the period upto 30.06.2017, the Exemption Notification No. 94/96 dated 16.12.1996 levied basic customs duty and countervailing duty and the Amendment Notification dated 19.07.2017 levied both basic customs duty and integrated tax, but it is equally true that Exemption Notification dated 30.06.2017, which operated from 01.07.2017 to 18.07.2021, merely levied duty of customs and did not levy integrated tax. It is not possible to accept the contention of the learned authorized representative of the department that the Exemption Notification for the intervening period, therefore, should be interpreted in such a manner so as to included integrated tax in the duty of customs.
Conclusion - The Amendment Notification dated 19.07.2021 cannot be said to be retrospective in nature. Findings to the contrary recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned orders on the basis of the Circular dated 19.07.2021 issued by CBIC basis the minutes of the meeting of the GST Council cannot, therefore, be sustained.
Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1522
Revision u/s 263 - assessee made investment in the equity shares as reflected from balance sheet but had not deducted any expense related to exempt income - AO did not disallow any expense related to such exempt income u/s 14A - HELD THAT:-We find that the judgment relied upon by the Ld. A.R in the case of PCIT Vs. Era Infrastructure [2022 (7) TMI 1093 - DELHI HIGH COURT] holds the field. It is categorically decided that amendment by Finance Act, 2022 to Section 14A by inserting a non-obstante clause and Explanation will take effect from 01.04.2022 and the same cannot be presumed to have retrospective effect. Thus, having regard to the entire aspect of matter we find that the issue raised and decided by the Ld. PCIT in the order impugned under Section 263 of the Act has already been enquired and examined/verified by the Ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings and only upon which the assessment proceedings has been finalized upon accepting return.
AO when already had discharged its statutory duty cast upon him by making inquiry on the same proposal as made by the Ld. PCIT during the course of assessment proceedings, branding the same as erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue made by the Ld. PCIT under the order impugned issued under Section 263 is, therefore, found to be arbitrary, whimsical, not sustainable in the eyes of law and thus, liable to be set aside. The assessee’s appeal is therefore allowed.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1521
Revocation of Customs Broker license - forfeiture of security deposit - levy of penalty - vague SCN - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It clearly transpires that the show cause notice does not even make an attempt to state the allegations concerning the four regulations that have been alleged to be violated. It has been left to the wisdom of the appellant to decipher from the investigation report contained in paragraph 3 of the show cause notice as to what are the allegations that can be culled out against the appellant in respect of the four alleged violations of the 2018 Regulations.
There is, therefore, substance in the submission advanced by Shri Anil Balani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the impugned order should be set aside for this sole reason, as the show cause notice does not even state the allegations in respect of violation of the four regulations under the 2018 Regulations.
The impugned order dated 29.01.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Customs deserves to be set aside and is set aside - Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1520
Valuation of taxable service - service tax to be charged on the gross commission due to the appellants as reflected in the certificates issued by the bank or on the net amount received by the appellant from the bank - extended period of limitation.
Demand of service tax in respect of the commission received by the appellant for getting loan sanctioned from various banks - HELD THAT:- This issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Tribunal under similar facts in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI VERSUS JMD MARKETING (P) LTD. [2013 (10) TMI 1446 - CESTAT MUMBAI] wherein the Tribunal has held that Service Tax should be paid on the gross amount charged by the service provider.
Further, on seeing the provision of Section 67 of the Act which provides that in case where the provision of service is for a consideration in money, the service tax chargeable on any taxable service with reference to its value shall be the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service provided or to be provided by him; therefore, considering the provision of Section 67 of the Finance act and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of JMD Marketing (P) Ltd and M/S EM PEE MOTORS LTD VERSUS CCE, CHANDGIARH [2011 (8) TMI 415 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] it is held that the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the gross commission rather than the net commission received by them, hence this issue is decided against the appellant.
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The Department has been able to establish that the appellant has suppressed the material facts with intention to evade the payment of service tax because the appellant was under bonafide belief that they are liable to pay service tax on the net amount of commission received from the bank and they have been paying the service tax accordingly and have been filing service tax returns. Further it is found that the Division Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of SHYAM SPECTRA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY CITYCOM NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI II [2024 (8) TMI 95 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has examined the issue of limitation in detail and after considering the various decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court, has come to the conclusion that if the ingredients of Section 73(1) are not established then the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked.
Conclusion - i) Appellant is liable to pay service tax on the gross commission rather than the net commission received by them, hence this issue is decided against the appellant. ii) The demand is entirely barred by limitation because the show cause notice has invoked the extended period of limitation.
The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed only on limitation.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1519
Disallowing the rate of tax as per Sec 115BAA of 22 percent on grounds of non- filing of form 10 ICC - HELD THAT:- Assessee is fulfilling all the conditions except filing of Form No. 10IC.
Considering the principle of beneficial interpretation, the procedural requirements should not override substantive benefits. The Courts have taken a lenient view on procedural lapses when substantive benefits are involved.
Supreme Court rulings always emphasized that the making of a claim of deduction is mandatory, but timing/format is directory. The assessee duly claimed the benefit in its return of income filed in Form No. ITR-6 and return was filed well within the time prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act.
As observed that the assessee has not filed Form No. 10IC for claiming concessional rate of tax but on the other hand CPC, Bengaluru also has not followed the procedure prescribed by the law. It is reasonably assumed that the if the CPC, Bengaluru would have followed the procedure, i.e. giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing, the assessee would have filed the Form No. 10IC before the CPC, Bengaluru and this technical requirement would have been completed.
Jurisdictional AO is directed to give a fresh opportunity to the assessee ignoring this adjustment made by the CPC, Bengaluru and the assessee is directed to file the form no. 10IC electronically/before the Jurisdictional AO to comply with the rules. Once the assessee filed the Form No. 10IC, the Jurisdictional AO is directed to revise the tax computation of the assessee in compliance with the provisions of section 115BAA of the Act - Ground Nos. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1518
Seeking grant of Regular bail - financial fraud - charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 - HELD THAT:- In the Affidavit dated 20th April 2023, it is stated that the scope of investigation is very wide and complicated and therefore the investigation of the present offence is going on under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The said statement is also to be found in the Affidavit dated 10th June 2024 of Mr. Sanjay G. Chavan, Police Inspector, Economic Offences Wing, Pune City, Pune.
The manner in which the offence has been committed as well as the conduct of the Applicant, and the Scrutiny Team of RBI was prevented from carrying out the scrutiny by the Staff members of the said Bank when the Applicant was the Chairman of the Bank, clearly shows that there is substance in the apprehension that the witnesses can be influenced. It is also required to be noted that when the RBI had issued the direction that only maximum amount of Rs.1,000/- be allowed to be withdrawn by the Depositors, the Applicant had withdrawn an amount of Rs.2 Crores. The same clearly shows that the Applicant is very influential, he has no regards for the law and he can go to any extent.
Although the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail due to the violation of his fundamental right to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, however, stringent conditions are required to be imposed on the Applicant. In this behalf, it is also required to be noted that the Applicant is a former Member of the Legislative Council for two terms and he is very influential person.
The Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay [2018 (10) TMI 74 - SUPREME COURT] has issued various directions in said decision in Paragraph No.21 for expeditious disposal of criminal cases against MP or MLA. The Supreme Court in the said decision has also made reference to the earlier Order dated 4th December 2018 where it is directed that criminal cases punishable with death/life against sitting and former MPs/MLAs should be taken up on a priority basis. In the present case, the offence is also under Section 409 of the IPC which is punishable with life imprisonment.
Conclusion - The applicant should be granted bail with conditions due to the prolonged detention and lack of trial progress.
The applicant is granted bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - Bail application allowed.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1517
Initiation of proceedings by issuance of notice u/s 148 by the non-jurisdictional officer - notice has been issued by Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(5), Meerut who did not have the requisite jurisdiction To issue the notice for reassessment - HELD THAT:- The assessee had filed a return of income on 07.07.2013 declaring the total income. The assessee is an individual and, taking into consideration Instruction No. 01/2011, for non-corporate returns in case of non-metro cities (mofussil areas), the returns above Rs. 15 lakhs have to be assessed by the officers of the rank of Assistant Commissioners/Deputy Commissioners. The report which is filed by the AO dated 26.06.2024 and reproduced above categorically mentions the fact that it is only on 15.05.2024, the PAN of the assessee has been transferred to ACIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Meerut, from ITO, Ward 1(2)(5), Meerut, as per CBDT Instruction No. 05/2011 dated 31.01.2011 vide which jurisdiction of noncorporate returns above Rs. 15 lakhs lies with ACIT/DCIT and upto Rs. 15 lakhs lies with ITO.
If the notice u/s 148 of the Act, issued by an authority not having jurisdiction, would be valid by referring to section 292BB of the Act, has held that jurisdiction can neither be waived nor created even by consent and even by submitting to jurisdiction, an assessee cannot confer upon any jurisdictional authority, some which he lack inherently. Notice u/s 148 is not a procedural subject, but, a jurisdictional one as it is a condition precedent for initiation of proceedings.
Now, admittedly, the notice u/s 148 dated 30.03.2021 is issued by ITO, Ward-1(2)(5), Meerut. Thus, certainly, this Revenue Officer did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction as vested by the Board vide CBDT Instructions No. 01/2011 dated 31.03.2011. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1516
Disallowance u/s. 14A - Expenditure limited to the extent of exempt income - HELD THAT:- Respectfully following the decisions of [2023 (7) TMI 1378 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] we set aside the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication by examining the facts and figures and calculate the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act as applicable for the present assessment year. Thus the Grounds of Appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
Characterization of receipts - treatment to the interest income from staff loans and advances, interest income from advances to others and miscellaneous receipts - business income Or income from other sources - HELD THAT:- As respectfully following the Jurisdictional High Court judgment [2020 (3) TMI 232 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] which has confirmed Tribunal’s decision in assessee’s own case, we hereby held that the interest income and miscellaneous income earned by the assessee are directly related to the business of the assessee and assessable as “business income” only and not as “income from other sources”. Thus the Ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is hereby rejected.
Disallowance of interest expenses - AO made disallowance of interest expenses at 12% of capital work-in-progress (CWIP) as despite booking of capital work-in-progress in the books of account, no interest expenses were capitalized by the assessee - HELD THAT:- We find force in the contentions of the assessee, AO failed to understand the concept of “Capitalization of Borrowing Costs”. A.O. has made addition out of the interest expenditure treating the same as attributable to the CWIP without appreciating the facts that the expenditure was in respect of existing building which was already put to use in earlier years and hence there was no question of capitalization any interest on account of the same.
The interest on borrowed capital is capitalized to correctly account the cost of asset in the books. This interest is added to the cost of the long-term asset, so that the interest is not recognized in the current period as interest expense. Instead, it is now a fixed asset, and is included in the depreciation of the long-term asset.
Thus, it initially appears in the balance sheet, and is charged to expense over the useful life of the asset; the expenditure therefore appears on the income statement as depreciation expense, rather than interest expense. Thus the Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
Disallowance u/s. 14A to be added in the computation of book profit u/s. 115JB - HELD THAT:- Respectfully following the Jurisdictional High Court judgment in assessee’s own case [2020 (3) TMI 232 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] the ground raised by the Revenue to include the disallowance u/s. 14A for the purpose of computation of book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act is hereby deleted.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1515
Condonation of delay in instituting an appeal - sufficient cause for delay or not - Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 - HELD THAT:- The delay is not inordinate and is sufficiently explained. The applicants have pleaded that they were not a party to the Interim Application and on being aware of the order dated 09 October 2023, the applicants applied for certified copies and some time was spent in obtaining the same. The conduct of the applicants is not such as would stigmatise them as some irresponsible litigants. There was no malafide involved or at least presently alleged. No undue advantage is taken by the applicants of their delay in instituting the accompanying appeal.
Upon a cumulative consideration of all such circumstances, this is not a matter where the applicant should be denied an opportunity to have his appeal heard on merits.
The delay is condoned.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1514
Surpassing scope of SCN - adjudicating authority while adjudicating the show-cause notice has gone beyond the scope of show-cause notice by considering the application filed by the appellant under VCES Scheme - Appealable order - HELD THAT:- The order of rejection of VCES Scheme is an appealable order. Admittedly, the said order dated 25.07.2014 is the subject matter of this appeal here.
The order dated 25.07.2014 passed by the preceding period rejecting VCES Scheme, has become final in the impugned order. The ld. Adjudicating authority has gone beyond the scope of the show-cause notice - matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority for deciding the show-cause notice on its own merit.
Conclusion - The adjudicating authority had acted beyond the scope of the show-cause notice, the impugned order is set aside.
The appeal is disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1513
Abatement of appeal - miscellaneous application filed under Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rule, 1982 - HELD THAT:- The submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant and miscellaneous application filed by the appellant is allowed and registry is directed to list the matter on 11.12.2024.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1512
Inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in deciding objection filed in pursuance of the order passed by the Supreme Court - HELD THAT:- Upon hearing counsel on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that this writ petition should be disposed of with a direction given upon respondent No.2 to dispose of the objection dated November 12, 2023 filed by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from date after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1511
Inaction on the part of respondent no. 2 in deciding the application filed u/s 154 - HELD THAT:- Respondent no. 2 should expeditiously hear the aforesaid application. Accordingly, we direct the respondent no. 2 to grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter decide the application filed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 within a period of eight weeks from date.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1510
Delay filling appeal - Dismissal of the appeal at the threshold on the ground of limitation - appeal was filed with a delay of 98 days - as submitted entire matter was entrusted with one accountant and he was in hold of the matter, but he did not perform his duty and because of certain other irregularities his services were dispensed with and at the time of leaving the office, abruptly he left and did not inform that the appeal has not been filed.
HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the appeal which should have been filed within 60 days had expired on 15.10.2021. Since the COVID intervened, the appeal period in all the cases were extended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court up till 30.05.2022 and subsequently, the appeal was filed on 05.09.2022. The bona fide of the appellant can be assumed from the fact that the challan for filing the appeal was paid on 10.11.2021.
Consequently, the intention on the part of the appellant can be gathered from the fact that some of the employees who was entrusted in the job to file the appeal, has failed to perform his duty. Eventually, his services were terminated. One of the reason has also been assigned that some raid was conducted on the premises of the appellant. Therefore, it can be inferred that because of such raid the entire focus might have been diverted that of assessee, coupled with the fact that the duty of filing the appeal since was entrusted to accountant, by the company and on account of non filing of the appeal, the services of concerned employee was terminated. In such case, the non filing of the appeal within time appears to be reasonable. Even otherwise, in condonation of delay, the Courts would lean more in favour of deciding of the appeal on merit instead of side lining the hearing of cases on merits on technical ground of the limitation.
Delay appears to be reasonable. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1509
Revision u/s 263 - gift received by the assessee from his grandmother - distinction between “lack of inquiry” and “inadequate inquiry” - amount received was required to be brought to tax u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit and was required to be taxed under section 115BBE but AO failed to make the above addition though assessee failed to prove creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions - HELD THAT:- Grievance of the PCIT is that the AO should have made further inquiry in respect of the impugned gift in the light of provisions of section 68 rather than accepting the assessee’s explanation. Therefore, it could not be said that it was the case of “lack of inquiry”. There is a distinction between “lack of inquiry” and “inadequate inquiry”. If there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that could not, by itself, give occasion to the Ld. PCIT to pass order u/s 263 of the Act merely because he has different opinion in the matter
In this case the assessee has received gift from his grandmother for which he has supplied affidavit, gift deed, bank statement of both donor and donee, ledger statement of Muthooth Finance etc. The assessee had also given a reply dated 12.04.2021 to the specific show cause notice issued by the AO
The said amount is reflected in assessee’s account with Indusind Bank . Bond ledger statement from Muthooth Finance Ltd. with their cheque dated 20.03.2017 also given. The account payee cheque has been signed by the authorized signatory for Muthooth Finance Ltd. These facts clearly established that the grandmother of the assessee has given Rs. 30,00,000/- through banking channel which has been duly reflected in the bank statement of the assessee.
Therefore, the explanation of the assessee was found acceptable by AO and he made no addition. He has taken a possible view which cannot be considered as perverse. Even the Ld. PCIT has not given any reason as to why the explanation of assessee is not acceptable. The facts of the present case are similar to the case of Nirav Modi [2016 (6) TMI 1004 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and we find no reasons to deviate from the finding of Hon’ble Bombay High Court.
Order of the Ld. PCIT is not sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1508
Assessment u/s 153A - non-application of mind while according approval as contemplated u/s 153D - HELD THAT:- A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Anuj Bansal [2023 (7) TMI 1214 - DELHI HIGH COURT] whereby, it was reiterated that the exercise of powers u/s 153D cannot be done mechanically. Thus, the salient aspect which emerges from the abovementioned decisions is that grant of approval under Section 153D of the Act cannot be merely a ritualistic formality or rubber stamping by the authority, rather it must reflect an appropriate application of mind.
Approval under Section 153D cannot be accorded in a casual or mechanical manner. Rather, the said exercise involves due application of mind which must be reflected in the order of approval passed by the concerned statutory authority.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1507
Benefit of Notification No. 25/2012-ST in respect of services of food and beverages by a canteen maintained in a factory - denial only on the ground that said exemption is available to the factory and not to the outside contractor who runs the canteen - HELD THAT:- From the plain reading of the above notification, it is nowhere indicated that which person will get the exemption. It is predominantly the service of Food and Beverages by a canteen is exempted irrespective of the fact that who is running the canteen. The only condition is that such canteen should be operated within the premises of the factory as per Factory’s Act, 1948 which is not in dispute. Therefore, the exemption of Notification No. 25/2012-ST is clearly admissible to the appellant. As it is the appellant who run the canteen in the factory which is covered by Factory’s Act, 1994.
This issue is no longer res-integra as the same has been decided by this Tribunal in the case of M/S ICS FOOD PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, NOIDA [2018 (7) TMI 1061 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] where it was held that 'the services provided by the appellant is covered by Entry No. 19A of the Negative List and exempted from payment of Service Tax.'
Conclusion - The exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST applies to the service of providing food and beverages within a factory canteen, regardless of whether the service is provided by the factory owner or an external contractor.
Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1506
Denial of deduction u/s. 80IA - assessee belatedly filed/uploaded the Audit Report in Form No. 10CCB electronically on 30.03.2019 (i.e. but before the return of income was processed) - HELD THAT:- As assessee had e-filed the audit report in Form 10CCB on 30.03.2019 and processing by CPC u/s. 143(1) of the Act took place only on 12.01.2020, which is an event much after the assessee had e-filed the Form 10CCB, therefore, the claim of deduction ought to have been granted especially when assessee was granted such a deduction for the earlier 5 years. Therefore, we set-aside the impugned order of Ld.CIT(A)/JCIT(A) and direct the AO to allow the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA. Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1505
Validity of Reassessment u/s 147 - applicability of Section 151 as the sanction has not been granted by the appropriate authority as specified - HELD THAT:- Once the petitioner has availed of an alternate remedy as provided under the Income Tax Act, namely of a substantive appeal being filed, and if the assessment order as also the notices issued to the petitioner prior thereto u/s 148A and u/s 148 are contrary to the substantive provisions of Section 151A and Section 151 of the Act, as interpreted by this Court in Hexaware [2024 (5) TMI 302 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Siemens [2023 (9) TMI 552 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] the Appellate Authority as also the Revisionary Authority being bound by the said decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, need to consider such legal position.
Thus, the petitioner is not precluded from raising all such contentions, as raised before us in the present proceedings, before the said authority.
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the proceedings which are pending before the CIT(A) as also the Revisionary proceedings, be decided considering the contentions of the petitioner namely as to whether the impugned assessment order as also the notice under Section 148 of the Act is illegal when tested on the law as declared by this Court in the aforesaid decisions.
ORDER:- The petitioner shall pursue the proceedings before the CIT(A) against the impugned assessment order as also the proceedings before the Revisionary Authority. It is open to the petitioner to raise contentions in regard to the illegality of the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148, in the light of the decisions of this Court in Hexaware and Siemens (supra).
Till the proceeding before the Appellate Authority or Revisionary Authority are decided, the impugned assessment order shall remain stayed.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1504
Implementation of Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for undertrial prisoners - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the fact that the substituted provision under the BNSS is more beneficial vis-a-vis Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein the period undergone by the first time offender was prescribed as up to half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for such an offence, this Court had called upon the learned Additional Solicitor General to obtain instructions from the Department and submit a clarification regarding application of the said provision to all undertrials across the country.
It is deemed appropriate to direct immediate implementation of Section 479 of the BNSS by calling upon Superintendents of Jails across the country wherever accused persons are detained as undertrials, to process their applications to the concerned Courts upon their completion of one-half/one-third, as the case may be, of the period mentioned in sub-section (1) of the said provision, for their release on bail. This step will go a long way in easing overcrowding in jails which is the primary focus of this Court in the present petition.
List on the date already fixed, i.e. 22nd October, 2024, at the top of the Board.
........
|
9911796707
