Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram
Tax Updates - TMI e-Newsletters

Home e-Newsletters Index Year 2021 March Day 23 - Tuesday

TMI e-Newsletters FAQ
You need to Subscribe a package.

Newsletter: Where Service Meets Reader Approval.

TMI Tax Updates - e-Newsletter
March 23, 2021

Case Laws in this Newsletter:

GST Income Tax Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Indian Laws



Highlights / Catch Notes

    GST

  • Seeking necessary amendments in the GST portal in respect of 14 pending export invoices - seeking grant of pending refund in respect of exports made through such 14 invoices - Necessary directions issued - HC

  • Seeking stay on the investigation - Jurisdiction of Delhi unit of DGGI - once the Gautam Budh Commissionerate had taken steps to investigate the petitioner, the other Intelligence Units should have held their hands; an approach which is both sensible and practical. The submission made by Mr. Prakash that there is a difference in the subject matter, and, therefore, other units can also investigate, to our minds, at this juncture, does not impress us. - HC

  • Validity of refund rejection order - excess tax was paid - As mandated by Rule 92 and is also the demand of principles of natural justice, no notice of show cause was given to the petitioner to explain as to why his claim for refund may not be rejected on merits. A unilateral decision was taken and the petitioner was conveyed the outcome of such decision i.e. rejection of the claim of the petitioner - Matter restored back - HC

  • Jurisdiction - The complaint filed by respondent No.2 cannot be said to be beyond his jurisdiction because the previous sanction of the Commissioner as provided for under Section 132(6) of CGST Act, would be required only after the conclusion of the investigation and at the stage of presentation of charge-sheet/final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., when judicial notice of the offence(s) are taken for the first time by a Court of law. Lodging of the FIR does not amount to prosecution and is clearly distinguishable from prosecution. - HC

  • Classification of goods - Roja Pakku - Merely because the petitioner had earlier opted to be classified under Chapter 21, the petitioner's past conduct cannot operate as estoppel. In fact, the petitioner's counsel made it clear that he will still clear all controversy and he will respond to the show cause and participate in enquiry, that may be initiated by the respondent - respondent should not put the petitioner's past conduct against him. - HC

  • Income Tax

  • Addition of security deposit - since the security deposit continues as a liability in the books of the assessee club, the assessing officer could not have added the same to the income of the assessee club. The tribunal has correctly, in our opinion, deleted the addition. - HC

  • Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - As specifically stated that although it is the case of the assessee that the cash deposit was from the opening cash balance, yet upon verification of the submission filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that there was no supporting evidence as regards the source of income. In the reasons, it has been specifically stated that the correct income should have been disclosed while filing of the return of the income - AO is justified in reopening of the assessment of the assessee - HC

  • TP Adjustment - selection of MAM - CUP method or TNMM - it is not the case of the Petitioner that a hearing was not held. In fact, the Petitioners have averred that on 1st December, 2020, the final hearing in the matter was conducted by Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner had also filed its written submissions before Respondent No. 2 on the subject matter, raising the plea of consistency. Besides, detailed submissions on merit, along with the relevant materials have also been filed in support thereof. Thus, we cannot attribute any violation of breach of natural justice to the DRP on the ground of not affording an opportunity of hearing. - HC

  • Revision u/s 263 - Exemption claimed u/s 80 IB(11- C) - If certain assessment order was made by the Income Tax Officer the same could not be branded as erroneous by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax merely because another view was possible - the Tribunal did not commit any error in holding that such enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer and hence there was no reason for the Pr. CIT to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263. - HC

  • Exemption u/s 11 denied - intimation was issued u/s. 143(1) - The Central Processing Center has also taxed the entire gross receipt of the assessee without allowing any expenditure. This cannot be done while processing the return u/s. 143(1) of the Act. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that Section 143(1) is meant for prima facie adjustment on the basis of material available on record without giving any opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, rejection of the claim of exemption u/s. 143(1) by Central Processing Center is not justified. - AT

  • Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Addition u/s 68 - AO has mentioned wrong and incorrect facts in the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment and did not apply his mind to the information received from Investigation Wing. Thus, the reopening of the assessment is invalid and bad in law and is liable to be quashed. - AT

  • LTCG or STCG - Sale of ground floor of residential unit - whether it give rise to long term capital gains or short term capital gains - Computation from period of holding from the date of getting right in the property or from the date of taking the possession - taking delivery of possession is only a formality. Therefore, reckoning the period from the date of advance, we hold that the sale of ground floor give raise to long term capital gains and not short term capital gains as held by the CIT. - AT

  • Penalty u/s 272A (2) (k) - assessee has failed to submit the quarterly TDS statements in Form No. 26Q - The reasonable cause of ignorance of technical knowledge lack of infrastructure and the first time default on the part of the assessee was accepted by the Tribunal as a reasonable cause. The provisions of section 273B provides that no penalty shall be imposable on a person or the assessee inter alia u/s 272A (2) for any failure if he explain that there was a reasonable cause for such failure. - AT

  • Long Term Capital Gain - CIT(A) in holding that the land to the extent of 35% only is transferred whereas entire land has been transferred to the developers for which the assessee has received consideration of 65% of constructed area - we found that the revenue is raising a new issue at this stage. - now raising a ground for treating the transfer to the extent of 100% is neither justified on merits nor the same can be raised by the revenue at this stage. Accordingly, we dismiss this ground of appeal raised by the revenue - AT

  • Revision u/s 263 - Addition u/s 68 - there is no material on record to demonstrate the source of funds so infused by way of share capital in the assessee company. The Assessing officer has merely relied on the statement of the assessee company that the shares have been allotted to the respective shareholders and in support, only the name of the shareholders and respective amount invested by them have been submitted. - the order so passed by the AO is clearly erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. - AT

  • Disallowance for late payment of employees contribution to ESI and PF - The respective enactment has although provided deterrent to the employer in the form of interest and penalty after late payment, however the employee will be still deprived of the interest if the contribution is paid after the due date of deposit. In view of provision of section 36(1)(iv) Act, the employer is discouraged to make deposit of employees contribution to ESI/EPF after the due date prescribed in respective enactment. - Additions confirmed - AT

  • Indian Laws

  • Dishonor of Cheque - vicarious liability of the Directors for having committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act - There is no allegation in the entire complaint that the present petitioners were either incharge of the Administration/Business of the company or that they are signatories to the cheque in question. - The complaint insofar as the present petitioners is liable to be quashed - HC

  • Service Tax

  • Valuation - inclusion of value of materials supplied by the respondent under a separate material supply contract with EDAs in the gross value of Works Contract Service - Rule 3 of Works Contract (Composition Scheme for payment of Service tax) Rules, 2007 - If the contention of the revenue is accepted it will amount to give retrospective effect to the amendment of 07.07.2009 which is not permissible under law - AT

  • VAT

  • Levy of penalty under Section 72(2) of KVAT Act - Wrong classification of goods - it is evident that the levy of penalty under Section 72(2) of the Act is neither automatic nor mandatory. - the condition precedent for invoking the powers under Section 64 of the Act, is not fulfilled. - HC

  • Period of limitation for initiating assessment - amendment with retrospective effect - it can be inferred that the amendment in Section 40 by virtue of the Amendment Act, is with retrospective effect and the KAT could not have set aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority by treating the assessment as barred by the period of limitation. - HC


Articles


Circulars / Instructions / Orders


News


Case Laws:

  • GST

  • 2021 (3) TMI 860
  • 2021 (3) TMI 859
  • 2021 (3) TMI 858
  • 2021 (3) TMI 857
  • 2021 (3) TMI 856
  • 2021 (3) TMI 855
  • 2021 (3) TMI 854
  • 2021 (3) TMI 853
  • 2021 (3) TMI 852
  • 2021 (3) TMI 842
  • Income Tax

  • 2021 (3) TMI 850
  • 2021 (3) TMI 849
  • 2021 (3) TMI 848
  • 2021 (3) TMI 847
  • 2021 (3) TMI 840
  • 2021 (3) TMI 837
  • 2021 (3) TMI 836
  • 2021 (3) TMI 835
  • 2021 (3) TMI 834
  • 2021 (3) TMI 833
  • 2021 (3) TMI 832
  • 2021 (3) TMI 831
  • 2021 (3) TMI 830
  • 2021 (3) TMI 829
  • 2021 (3) TMI 828
  • 2021 (3) TMI 827
  • 2021 (3) TMI 826
  • 2021 (3) TMI 825
  • 2021 (3) TMI 824
  • 2021 (3) TMI 822
  • 2021 (3) TMI 821
  • 2021 (3) TMI 820
  • 2021 (3) TMI 819
  • 2021 (3) TMI 818
  • 2021 (3) TMI 815
  • 2021 (3) TMI 814
  • 2021 (3) TMI 813
  • 2021 (3) TMI 812
  • 2021 (3) TMI 811
  • 2021 (3) TMI 810
  • 2021 (3) TMI 809
  • 2021 (3) TMI 807
  • 2021 (3) TMI 805
  • 2021 (3) TMI 804
  • 2021 (3) TMI 803
  • Corporate Laws

  • 2021 (3) TMI 817
  • 2021 (3) TMI 808
  • Securities / SEBI

  • 2021 (3) TMI 806
  • Service Tax

  • 2021 (3) TMI 841
  • 2021 (3) TMI 838
  • 2021 (3) TMI 823
  • Central Excise

  • 2021 (3) TMI 846
  • 2021 (3) TMI 845
  • 2021 (3) TMI 816
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax

  • 2021 (3) TMI 844
  • 2021 (3) TMI 839
  • Indian Laws

  • 2021 (3) TMI 861
  • 2021 (3) TMI 851
  • 2021 (3) TMI 843
 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates