Supreme Court

GST Council Recommendations Not Binding On Centre & States; Both Parliament & State Legislatures Can Legislate On GST : Supreme Court

Case Title : Union of India and Anr versus M/s Mohit Minerals Through Director

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 500

In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court held that the recommendations of the GST council are not binding on the Union and the State Governments.

A bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud held that the Parliament intended that the recommendations of the GST Council will have persuasive value.

Importantly, the Court held that both the Parliament and the State Legislatures can equally legislate on matters of Goods and Service Tax.

Case Name: Union of India And Anr. v. M/s. Mohit Minerals Through Director

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 500

Separate IGST On Indian Importers For Ocean Freight Against Concept Of "Composite Supply", Violates Section 8 CGST Act : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held when the Indian importer is liable to pay Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on the 'composite supply', which includes supply of goods and supply of services of transportation, insurance, etc. in a CIF contract, a separate levy on them for the 'supply of services' by the shipping line would be in violation of Section 8 of the CGST Act.

Indian Company Liable To Service Tax On Secondment Of Employees From Overseas Group Entities As Recipient Of Manpower Supply: Supreme Court

Case Name: C.C., C.E. & S.T. - Bangalore (Adjudication) Etc. v. M/s. Northern Operating Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 526

The Supreme Court has held that when the Overseas group companies providing skilled employees, on secondment basis, to its Indian counterparts amounts to supply of manpower services, the Indian company would be considered as service recipient. Therefore, the Indian company is liable to pay service tax on the salaries of the seconded employees reimbursed to the overseas company.

Tax Exemption Notification Must Be Construed Strictly; Promissory Estoppel Not Applicable In Taxing Matters: Supreme Court

Case Name: State of Gujarat v. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 79

The Supreme Court reinstated the order of the Revenue levying demand of purchase tax and imposing penalty on Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited (erstwhile Essar Steel Ltd.) for availing tax benefits without fulfilling all the eligibility criteria/condition of the Scheme For Special Incentives to Prestigious Units floated by the Gujarat Government in 1991.

Supreme Court Rules Tata Steel Has Locus Standi To Challenge Denial Of Input Tax Credit To Its Unit

Case Title: Tata Steel Ltd Versus The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

A Bench of Supreme Court, consisting of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi, remanded a matter back to Jharkhand High Court for a fresh decision on Tata Steel's writ petition against the denial of input tax credit to its Naomundi unit.

GST Evasion Can't Be Presumed Merely Because Goods Were Delivered After Expiry Of E-Way Bill Due To External Factors Like Traffic Block: Supreme Court

Case Name: Assistant Commissioner (ST) And Ors. v. M/s. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 87

The Supreme Court has observed that non-extension of e-way bill would not automatically amount to evasion of tax, especially when the non-delivery of goods within the validity period of the e-way bill was due to external factors, like, traffic blockage.

A Bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy dismissed an appeal filed by the Revenue Department assailing the order of the Telangana High Court, which had set aside the order, imposing tax and penalty passed by a Deputy Sales Tax Officer, with cost.

Service Tax - Exemption Notification Should Not Be Liberally Construed ; Assessee Has To Show That He Comes Within Its Purview: Supreme Court

Case: Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, New Mandi Yard, Alwar vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Alwar

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 203

The Supreme Court observed that exemption notification should not be liberally construed and it is for the assessee to show that he comes within the purview of the notification.

The bench comprising upheld the order passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi which held that the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Agricultural Produce Market Committees) located in different parts of State of Rajasthan liable to pay service tax under the category of "renting of immovable property service" for the period upto 30.06.2012.

Whether Product `Nimbooz' Can Be Classified Under Item `Lemonade' Or `Fruit Pulp Or Fruit Juice Based Drinks': Supreme Court To Consider

Case Title: Commissioner Of Central Excise Hyderabad-I V. M/S Aradhana Foods And Juices Pvt. Ltd.

The Supreme Court recently agreed to consider whether the product `Nimbooz' can be classified under item `Lemonade' and/or as `fruit pulp or fruit juice based drinks' for the purpose of Central Excise levy.

States Have Legislative Competence To Levy Tax On Lotteries Run By Other States : Supreme Court Allows Appeals Of Kerala & Karnataka

Case Title : State of Karnataka and another vs State of Meghalaya and another and other connected cases

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 309

In a significant judgement, the Supreme Court has held that State legislatures have the competence to levy tax on the lotteries organized by other states.

Holding so, a bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna allowed the appeals filed by the States of Karnataka and Kerala challenging the judgments of Karnataka and Kerala High Courts which held that they lacked the legislative competence to levy tax on the lotteries organized by other states like Nagaland, Meghalaya and Sikkim.

Plea In Supreme Court Challenges The Constitutional Validity Of Levy Of GST On Lease/ Rent Payments

Case Title: Myrayash Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court of India has asked the petitioner(s) to serve an advance copy to the Additional Solicitor General to seek instructions in a plea challenging constitutional validity of levy of GST on lease/ rent payments.

Interest On Delayed Refunds Covered Under Principal Provision Of Section 56 Of CGST Act Cannot Exceed 6%: Supreme Court

Case Name: Union of India And Ors. v. M/s. Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 398

The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, held that in cases of delayed refund of integrated tax paid on export of goods governed by the principal provision of Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the interest would be payable at the rate of 6% as prescribed by the statute, especially when the delay was not inordinate.

Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court Orders To De-seal Business Premises, Directs Assessee To Produce Documents

Case Title: M/s Shakti Oil And Chemical Co. Versus Commissioner of DGST Delhi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 556

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Poonam S. Bamba has ordered the department to de-seal business premises and directed the assessee to produce documents.

Bail Amount Can Be Paid By Cash Ledger, Debit Ledger Of ITC: Delhi High Court Refuses To Cancel Bail Of A Person Accused of Fraudulently Availing ITC

Case Title: Amit Gupta Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence Headquarters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 426

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Mukta Gupta has ruled that the bail amount can be paid by cash ledger and debit ledger of the Input Tax Credit (ITC).

Challan Can Be Rectified To Correct Bonafide Errors: Delhi High Court Directs VAT Dept. To Allow Changes in Tax Period

Case Title: : La Mode Fashions Private Limited Vs Commissioner, Value Added Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 195

The Delhi High Court bench, consisting of Chief Justice Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh, directed the Value Added Tax (VAT) department to allow rectification of bonafide errors in the tax period of the challan.

GST Provisional Attachment Order Not Valid After Expiry Of 1 Year: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Pashupati Properties Estate Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Taxes

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 231

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain has held that every provisional attachment order ceases to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date the order was passed under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act.

Revenue Fails To Discharge Onus Of Grant Of Personal Hearing, Delhi High Court Quashes Order Rejecting Refund Application Under GST Act

Case Title: Richie Rich Exim Solutions versus Commissioner of CGST Delhi South

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 310

The Delhi High Court has quashed the order rejecting an applicant's refund application under GST Act on the ground that the revenue authority had breached the principles of natural justice by not affording a reasonable opportunity to the applicant before rejecting its refund application.

Show Cause Notice Completely Deficient In Material Particulars: Delhi High Court Quashes GST Registration Cancellation Order

Case Title: Fada Trading Private Limited Versus Commissioner Goods and Service Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 328

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Poonam Bamba has quashed the order cancelling the GST registration as the Show Cause Notice was completely deficient in material particulars.

Bombay High Court

Services Rendered Abroad Amounts to Export Of Services, No GST Applicable: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Jar Productions Private Limited Versus The Union of India & Ors.

The Bombay High Court has held that GST does not apply to the services rendered abroad as they amount to the export of services.

The division bench of Justice S.V. Gangapurwala and Justice M.G. Sewlikar has allowed the GST refund to the petitioner/assessee as the department has failed to establish that the incidence of tax was passed on to the client amounted to unjust enrichment.

Service Recipient Liable To Pay GST On Interest Amount Under Arbitral Award For Delayed Payment: Bombay High Court

Case Title: M/s Angerlehner Structural and Civil Engineering Company Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay

The Bombay High Court has held that the service recipient is liable to pay the GST to the government on interest under an arbitrary award and it can not be deducted from the dues payable to the service provider.

The single bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla has observed that service tax is an indirect tax, and it is possible that it may be passed on. Therefore, an assessee can certainly enter into a contract to shift its liability for service tax.

COVID-Supreme Court Order Suspending Limitation Is Applicable For Refund Under GST Act – Bombay High Court

Case Title: Saiher Supply Chain Consulting Pvt Ltd v. Union of India and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 6

The Bombay High Court has quashed and set aside an order of the Assistant Commissioner of CGST refusing refund of GST paid by a private export company on the ground that the company's application was time barred or not filed within the limitation period prescribed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST) Act.

A division bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and SM Modak observed that the Supreme Court's decision from March, 2020, extending the time limit prescribed under the general or special laws, for proceedings due to the Covid-19 pandemic, would apply in the present case.

Issue Norms As To How Many Times Summons Can Be Issued During Investigations: Bombay High Court Directs GST Dept

Case Title: Shalaka Infra-Tech India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Versus The Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 64

The Bombay High Court has directed the Goods and Service Tax (GST) Department to issue norms as to how many times summons can be issued during investigations.

The division bench of Justice S.M.Modak and Justice R.D.Dhanuka has directed the Department/respondents to indicate as to how many time summons were issued by the respondents to the petitioners, for what purpose and the progress of the investigation during this period. Affidavit shall also indicate as to when the investigation would be completed by the respondents against the petitioners.

Appeal Against CESTAT Order, On Classification Of Goods, And Determination Of Customs Duty Lies Before The Supreme Court: Bombay High Court

Case Title: The Commissioner of Customs II versus Axiom Cordages Ltd

The Bombay High Court has ruled than an appeal from an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), involving the question with respect to classification of goods under the Customs Act, 1962, would lie before the Supreme Court under Section 130E of the Customs Act, since it is primarily related to determination of the rate of customs duty applicable.

Dept. To Decide Whether Corrected Form TRAN-1 Would Be Entertained As Per Transitional Provision Under GST: Bombay High Court Allows Taxpayers To Correct Form TRAN-1

Case Title: Ambica Fertilisers Versus The Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 148

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice S.G. Mehare and Justice R.D. Dhanuka has allowed the taxpayers to correct Form TRAN-1. The court has directed the department to consider the issue of whether Form TRAN-1 and other forms that would be filed or corrected by the petitioner can be entertained in accordance with provisions of section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 117 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 or not.

Gujarat High Court

Reassessment Should Only Be Done By Officer Or His Successor And Not By Any Officer Of The Same Rank : Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Messrs Aztec Fluids And Machinery Pvt. Ltd. Versus UOI

The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Rajendra M. Saraen, while invalidating the reassessment initiated by the DRI, held that the officer who did the assessment could only undertake reassessment.

GST Refund To Be Granted To The Entity Who Borne The Tax Burden: Gujarat High Court Allows GST Refund To Service Recipient

Case Title: Munjaal Manishbhai Bhatt Versus Union Of India

The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J.B.Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M.Thakore has held that, as per Section 54 of the CGST Act, a claim of refund may be made directly by the recipient if he has borne the burden of tax.

Bonafide Mistake In Selection Of Wrong ODC Vehicle Type While Generating E-Way Bill: Gujarat High Court Quashes Detention Order

Case Title: Dhabriya Polywood Limited Vs Union of India

The Gujarat High Court has quashed the detention order as there was a bonafide mistake in the selection of the wrong ODC vehicle type while generating the e-way bill.

The division bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala (as then was) and Justice Nisha M. Thakore observed that the goods were in transit with all the necessary documents, including the E-way bill generated from the GST portal. The goods were moved by a truck whose registration number was also correct. The only mistake in this case was the selection of the wrong ODC vehicle type while generating the e-Way Bill.

Section 44 Of GVAT Act Akin To Garnishee Order; Requires Debtor-Creditor Relationship: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Shri Shakti Cotton Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commercial Tax Officer

"It can be said that in interpreting a taxing statute, the equitable considerations are entirely out of place. The reasons of morality and fairness can have no application to bring a citizen who is not within the four corners of the taxing statute within its fold so as to make him liable to payment of tax," Justice JB Pardiwala of the Gujarat High Court has opined.

Provisional Attachment Not To Hamper Normal Business Activities: Gujarat High court Quashes Attachment Order

Case Title: Arya Metacast Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Gujarat

The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has held that the provisional attachment should not hamper normal business activities of the taxable person.

Gujarat High Court Condemns Coercive Steps Taken By Dept. For Recovery Of Dues From Wipro While Appeal Was Pending

Case Title: M/s Wipro Ltd. Versus State of Gujarat

The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has condemned the coercive steps of the department for recovery of dues from Wipro when the appeal was pending before the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal.

Gujarat High Court Directs Assistant Commissioner Of CGST To Finalise Assessment Proceedings Within 2 Months On Account Of Severe Delay

Case Title: Modern Syntex (I) Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of CGST

The Gujarat High Court has recently issued a writ directing the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise to initiate and complete the final assessment proceedings concerning the Applicant company and further release the Bank Guarantees in favour of the Applicant within two months. The Applicant company had also showed monetary losses worth INR 96,87,616 due to the bank guarantee charges and claimed compensation for the same in its writ application.

If The Authorities Acknowledge The Error And Accepts Repayment Of Erroneous Refund, It Is Logical To Restore The ITC In The Electronic Tax Ledger : Gujarat High Court

Case Title: I-Tech Plast India Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Gujarat

The Gujarat High Court has directed the revenue to re-credit/restore the Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the tune of INR 1,39,49,810 in the electronic tax ledger of the writ petitioner . The Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Nisha Thakore was hearing a writ petition which sought from the Respondent-authorities to re-credit the ITC of INR 139,49,810 in the electronic credit ledger along with interest.

Fraudulent Claim of ITC, Revenue Interest is Protected by Attachment: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail

Case Title: Niraj Jaidev Arya Versus State of Gujarat

The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice Gita Gopi has granted bail to the accused of fraudulently availing the input tax credit (ITC) as the department has attached the immovable properties, which were much beyond the alleged GST evasion.

Dealer's GST Registration Can't Be Cancelled For Inadvertent Mistake Of CA: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: M/s Dilipkumar Chandulal Versus State of Gujarat

The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has ruled that the dealer should not be forced to pay a hefty price for the cancellation of the GST registration for the chartered accountant's mistake.

Attachment of Immovable Properties Of Director Despite settlement of Tax Dues Under Tax Resolution Scheme: Gujarat High Court Condemns Dept.

Case Title: Shri Shakti Cotton Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commercial Tax Officer

The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has condemned the act of the department for attaching the personal immovable properties of the director even though the tax dues were settled under the Tax Resolution Scheme.

Gujarat High Court Releases Confisticated Cash, Goods As GST Dept. Delayed Issuance Of SCN Beyond Statutory Time Period

Case Title: Amit Harishkumar Doctor Versus Union of India

The Gujarat High Court has released the confisticated ​​cash and goods as the Goods and Service Tax (GST) Department delayed issuance of Show Cause Notice (SCN) beyond statutory time period.

The division bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak has observed, "it is quite unfathomable as to why the time limit is not adhered to and issuance of the show cause notice has been delayed beyond the statutory time period and hence, intervention will be necessary at the end of this Court by keeping open the rights of the respondents to initiate adjudication process afresh in accordance with law."

Input/Output Ratios To Be Considered For Determining Quantum Of Refund Of Unutilized GST ITC: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Messers Filatex India Ltd. Versus Union Of India

The Gujarat High Court has ruled that the input or output ratios to be considered for determining the quantum of refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC).

The division bench of Justice J.B.Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M.Thakore has directed Assistant Commissioner to adjudicate the claim of the writ applicants in accordance with Sub Rule (4B) of Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, but keeping in mind the formula of input or output ratio of the inputs or raw materials used in the manufacturing of the exported goods.

Dept. Can't Raise Their Hands In Despair For Technical Glitches In GST Portal: Gujarat HC Directs Dept. To Allow Manual Furnishing Of GSTR-6

Case Title: M/s Bodal Chemicals Ltd. Versus Union Of India

The Gujarat High Court has come down heavily on the Goods and Service Tax Department for technical glitches in the portal.

The division bench of Justice J.B.Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore observed that the writ petitioner/ taxpayer has been running from pillar to post requesting the respondents/ department to provide a solution and take care of the technical error and glitch that occurred as regards furnishing the GSTR-6 return for recording and distributing the Input Service Distributor (ISD) credit.

ITC Received From Input Service Distributor Lying Unutilized In Electronic Credit Ledger Liable To Be Refunded: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: M/s. IPCA Laboratories Versus Commissioner

The Gujarat High Court has held that Input Tax Credit received from input service distributor lying unutilized in electronic credit ledger is liable to be refunded.

Department Cannot Block GST ITC Without Assigning Any Reason: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: M/s New Nalbandh Traders Versus State of Gujarat

The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has held that the department cannot block the Input Tax Credit (ITC) without assigning any reason to the assessee.

Goods In Transit Can't Be Confiscated Under CSGT Act On Grounds Of Under-Valuation Or Wrong Route: Gujarat High Court

Case title - M/S. KARNATAKA TRADERS v. STATE OF GUJARAT

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 1

The Gujarat High Court has held that mere undervaluation of the goods or change of route of the consignment can't be sufficient grounds to detain the goods and vehicle under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Holding thus, the Bench of Justice Nisha M. Thakore quashed the entire confiscation proceedings including the notice issued u/s 130 of CGST Act against the Petitioner, Karnataka Traders, who is a seller of the goods (Arecanut) and a registered dealer under the GST.

Electronic Credit Ledger Can Be Blocked Under GST Rules 2017 Only If Credit Balance Is Available: Gujarat HC Orders Authorities To Refund ₹20L

Case Title: SAMAY ALLOYS INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 46

The Gujarat High Court has recently held that the power prescribed under Rule 86A of the GST Rules 2017 to block an electronic credit ledger can be exercised only when there is availability of credit in such ledger, alleged to be ineligible.

Gujarat High Court Directs Refund Of IGST In Electronic Credit Ledger For SEZ Unit U/S 54 Of CGST Act, 2017

Case Title: M/S. Ipca Laboratories Ltd vs Commissioner

The Gujarat High Court has recently held that the Writ Applicant can be entitled to claim the refund of the IGST lying in the Electronic Credit Ledger as there was no specific supplier who could claim the refund under the provisions of the CGST Act and the CGST Rules as Input Tax Credit as distributed by the input service distributor. Further directing the Respondent-Authority to process claim of refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, the Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M Thakore allowed the writ application.

Gujarat High Court Quashes Non-Speaking And Vague GST Cancellation Order

Case Title: Sing Traders Versus State of Gujarat

The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala as he then was and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has quashed the GST cancellation order as it was non-speaking and vague.

Order Passed On The Same Day When Notice Was Issued Led To The Violation Of Principle Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: M/s MBR Flexibles Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax

The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice A.J. Desai and Justice Bhargav D. Karia has quashed the order under GST on the grounds that the notice as well as the order were passed on the same date, denying the opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Gujarat High Court Directs Dept. To Refund IGST On Ocean Freight Along With The Interest

Case Title: ADI Enterprises Versus Union Of India

The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice A.J. Desai and Justice Bhargav D. Karia has directed the department to refund IGST on ocean freight along with the interest.

Karnataka High Court

Just Because The Ratio For Payment Of Service Tax Not Adhered To, Assessee Not Liable To Pay Double Tax As Penalty: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: The Vice Chairman Settlement Commission & Anr. versus M/s Zyeta Interiors Pvt. Ltd & Anr.

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that merely because the ratio in which service tax was required to be paid by the service recipient and the service provider was not strictly adhered to, the assessee cannot be made liable to pay double tax by denying him the CENVAT Credit.

The Bench, consisting of Justices S. Sujatha and Shivashankar Amarannavar, held that the reverse charge mechanism should not lead to double taxation.

No Conflict Between Power To Levy GST And Power Of Municipal Corporation To Levy Advertisement Fee Or Advertisement Tax: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Hubballi Dharwad Advertisers Association (R) Vs State of Karnataka

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice Suraj Govindraj held that there is no conflict between the power to levy GST under the GST Act and the power of a municipal corporation to levy an advertisement fee or advertisement tax under Section 134 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act.

18% GST Payable On 'Pattadar Pass Book Cum Title Deed' ; Karnataka High Court Upholds AAR Ruling

Case Title: M/s. Manipal Technologies Ltd. Versus State of Karnataka

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice S. Sujatha and Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar, while upholding the ruling of the Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR), held that 18% GST is payable on 'pattadar pass book cum title deed'.

Municipal Corporations Can Levy Advertisement Fee/ Tax Under KMC Act, No Conflict With Levy Of GST: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: HUBBALLI DHARWAD ADVERTISERS ASSOCIATION and others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA and Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 144

The Karnataka High Court has declared that there is no conflict between the power to levy GST under GST Act and power of Municipal Corporation to levy advertisement fee or advertisement tax under Section 134 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act.

Karnataka High Court Upholds GST & Central Excise Duty On Tobacco; Says 'Articles 246 & 246A Can Be Simultaneously Exercised'

Case Title: M/s.V.S.Products v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 7

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the notification dated July 6, 2019 issued by the Union of India by which Central Excise Duty has been levied on tobacco and tobacco products.

A single Judge bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav said, "It needs to be kept in mind that taxation is not merely a source of raising revenue but is also recognised by the fiscal tool to achieve fiscal and social objective."

Building Owner Can Claim GST Exemption If Residential Premises Leased Out Are Used As Hostel: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish v. Appellate Authority For Advance Ruling Karnataka

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 43

The Karnataka High Court has held that an owner of a building can claim tax exemption under the Goods and Services Act (GST) if the residential premises leased out are used as a hostel to house students and working professionals.

Kerala High Court

Kerala High Court Directs GST Dept. To Facilitate Revision Of Form GST TRAN-1 By Making Necessary Arrangements On The Portal

Case Title: M/S G&C infra Innovations v. Union of india

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 209

The Kerala High Court bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has directed the GST department to facilitate the revising of Form GST TRAN-1 and filing of Form GST TRAN-2 by making necessary arrangements on the web portal.

KVAT Registration Once Cancelled Has To Be Published In Two Leading Daily Newspapers: Kerala High Court

Case Title: The State of Kerala Versus Raseena K.K.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 215

The Kerala High Court ruled that once a Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) registration is cancelled, it must be published in at least two major daily newspapers, and the dealer must be notified in accordance with Form No.5 B.Then only will the cancellation of registration be effective.

Credit Notes Not Affecting Input Tax Can't Be Treated As Taxable Turnover: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Saji Thomas Vs Assistant Commissioner

The Kerala High Court bench of Justice S.V. Bhatti, Bechu Kurian Thomas, and Justice Basant Balaji has held that credit notes not affecting input tax already deposited cannot be treated as taxable turnover by the extended meaning of Section 2 subsection (iii) Explanation VII of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act.

Cannot Waive The Statutory Mandate of Pre-Deposit Merely On The Plea Of Financial Hardships: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Santosh Kumar K. v. The Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 171

The Kerala High Court bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has ruled that the high court cannot waive the statutory mandate of pre-deposit merely on the plea of financial hardships.

Bonafide Error In Format Of Date On E-Way Bill, Warrants Only Minor Penalty: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has held that a minor penalty can be imposed for a bona fide mistake in the date on an e-way bill.

Can GST Be Imposed On Royalty Paid To Govt? Kerala High Court To Consider

Case Title: Royal Sand & Gravels Pvt Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

The Kerala High Court has admitted a plea that has raised significant questions of whether royalty paid to the government qualifies as tax and if GST can be imposed on such royalty.

Kerala High Court Strikes Down Rules 9(4A) and 9(4C) Of Municipality Rules On Property Tax Fixation

Case Title: K.P. Muhammed Ashraf v. Taliparamba Municipality & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 20

The Kerala High Court has set aside Rules 9(4A) and 9(4C) of the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Tax and Surcharge) Rules which prescribe fixation of property tax at a minimum of 25% over and above the tax levied for the previous year, if the property tax arrived at on computation as per the Rules is less than the tax levied for the previous year.

Justice N. Nagaresh pointed out that Section 233 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 does not permit the fixation of property tax over and above the upper limit fixed by the Government.

Taxpayer Can't Approach High Court To Avoid Mandatory Pre-Deposits While Availing Appellate Remedy: Kerala HC

Case Title: Nico Tiles v. State Tax Officer & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 124

The Kerala High Court has recently held that a taxpayer cannot seek to avoid mandatory pre-deposits as a remedy to an appeal under Section 107 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

District Magistrate Empowered To Attach Property, Not Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Commissioner: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/s. Prashanthi Affiliates Versus Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 65

The Karnataka High Court has held that the District Magistrate is empowered to attach the property and not the Commissioner of Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Commissioner (BBMP).

Karnataka High Court Orders GST Refund of Rs. 27 Crores Illegally Collected from Swiggy

Case Title: Union of India and Ors. v. M/s Bundl Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 73

The Karnataka High Court has ordered the Goods and Service Tax (GST) department to refund Rs. 27 crore, which was illegally collected from Swiggy.

Uttarakhand High Court

Uttarakhand High Court Stays Circular Restricting Filing Of GST Refund For Tax Periods Spread Across Two Financial Years In Chronological Order

Case Title: M/S U P TELELINKS LIMITED v. M/S U P TELELINKS LIMITED & ORS., WPMS 2912/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Utt) 4

The Uttarakhand High Court has stayed the operation of a Circular issued by the Revenue Authorities, to the extent it inhibits refund claims for a period of two separate (not successive) financial years and requires filing of Refund in a chronological manner.

Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Grant Priority of Government Dues Over Debts Due To Secured Creditors

Case Title: Asstt. Commercial Taxes Officer Versus M/s. Punusumi India Limited

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur has refused to grant the priority of the government dues over the debts due to secured creditors.

Rajasthan High Court Refuses Bail To Director Of A Company Allegedly Involved In GST Evasion Worth Rs.869 Crores

Case Title: Sohan Singh Rao Versus Union Of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 112

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha has refused to grant bail to the director of a company who was allegedly involved in goods and service tax (GST) evasion worth Rs. 869 crores. The court noted that the Supreme Court in its various decisions held that an economic offender should not be dealt with as a general offender because economic offenders run a parallel economy and they are a serious threat to the national economy.

Non-Availability Of Form GST ITC-02A On GSTN Portal: Rajasthan High Court Allows ITC In GSTR-3B

Case Title: Pacific Industries Ltd. Versus Union Of India

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani has allowed the Input Tax Credit (ITC) under GST in GSTR-3B Return as FORM GST ITC-02A was not available on the GSTN Portal at the time of its insertion.

Provisional Attachment under CGST Act Ceases After Expiry Of One Year: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: M/s B.r. Construction Company Versus Additional Director

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 87

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the provisional attachment under CGST Act ceases to have effect after expiry of one year.

Rajasthan High Court Upholds Section 54 CGST Act Pertaining To Tax Refund

Case Title: M/s Triveni Electrodes v. Union Of India and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 34

The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has upheld the vires of Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The same pertains to Refund of tax.

Akin To Power To Issue & Serve Summons Under Order V CPC: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Constitutionality Of S.70 Rajasthan GST Act 2017

Case Title: M/s S.k. Metal v. Assistant Commissioner, B II Enforcement Wing II, Department Of Commercial Taxes

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 38

The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the vires of Section 70 of Rajasthan GST Act, 2017 which provides for Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents.

Rajasthan VAT Act Enacted To Provide Remedy For Loss Of Revenue & Not To Punish Offender For Committing Economic Offence: High Court

Case Title: Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Circle-A, Bharatpur Rajasthan v. M/s C.P. Agro Industries Roopwas, Bharatpur, Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 64

The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur has observed that provisions of Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 have been enacted to provide remedy for loss of revenue and not to punish the offender for committing economic offence and, therefore, mens rea is not an essential ingredient for contravention of such provision.

The court added that breach would attract levy of penalty whenever the goods in movement have travelled with an incomplete form.

Clarification Issued By CBDT Cannot Introduce A Cut Off Date For Its Applicability: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Rakesh Garg Versus Principal Comissioner Of Income Tax, Ajmer

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 77

A Bench of Rajasthan High Court, consisting of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal, held that since the primary intention of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 was the resolution of disputed taxes, the courts must adopt an interpretation that furthers this intention and not restrict its scope. Also, the court ruled that a clarification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), being declaratory in nature, cannot introduce a cut off date for its applicability.

Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Exempt Assessee From Personal Appearance Under GST

Case Title: Suresh Balkrishna Jajra Versus Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 136

The Rajasthan High Court consisting of Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain has refused to exempt the assessee from personal appearance under Section 70 of the CGST Act.

Rajasthan High Court Directs GST Dept. To Reimburse The Pre Deposit In View Of CIRP Of Binani Cement

Case Title: M/s Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta has directed the GST department to reimburse amounts deposited by Binani Cement as a mandatory statutory obligation to the Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement.

Rajasthan High Court Restrains GST Dept. From Recovery Of GST On Royalty Paid On Account Of Excavation Of Sand For Brick

Case Title: Shree Basant Bhandar Int Udyog Versus UOI

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Justice Vijay Bishnoi has restrained the GST department from recovering GST on royalty paid on account of the excavation of sand for brick.

Allahabad High Court

Allahabad High Court Stays GST Demand On Payment Of Royalty To Conduct Mining Activity

Case Title: M/s Jitendra Singh Versus Union of India

The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh has stayed the GST demand on payment of royalty to conduct mining activity.

Applicability of GST On Royalty On Mining: Allahabad High Court Directs Assessee To Reply To SCN

Case Title: M/s Ashish Pandey Versus UOI

The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Brij Raj Singh, while dealing with the issue of the applicability of GST on royalties on mining, has directed the assessee to reply to the show cause notice issued by the department.

Registration Under GST ACT Cannot Be Cancelled By Merely Describing The Firm As 'Bogus': Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Apparent Marketing Private Limited versus State of U.P. and Others

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that registration under GST Act cannot be cancelled by merely describing the firm as 'bogus'.

The Single Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh held that cancellation of GST registration has serious consequences since it takes away the fundamental right of a citizen to engage in business, adding that the revenue authorities have a heavy burden to establish the existence of facts that may allow for cancellation of registration under the GST Act.

Survey Not Disputed By The Partner Of The Firm Who Was Present - Can't Question Later: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S. Shree Ram Engineering Works Versus Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 155

The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal has ruled that once the partner of the firm was available at the time of the survey, who must have signed the survey report, he could very easily request to correct the entries or refuse to sign the survey report, if it was not recorded as per his statement.

Rejection Of GST Refund Application On The Ground Of Delay Not Valid, Extension Of Limitation Applicable: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Gamma Gaana Limited Versus Union Of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 118

The Allahabad High Court bench consisting of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerji observed that the refund application under the Goods and Service Tax (GST) cannot be rejected merely on the ground of delay.

Form GST DRC-01A Is A Pre-Show Cause Notice Intimation Which Focuses On Reducing Litigation: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Nanhey Mal Munna Lal Versus State Of U.P.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 129

The Allahabad High Court, consisting of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerji, has ruled that Form GST DRC-01A is a pre-show cause notice intimation which focuses on reducing litigation.

Madras High Court

Failure Of Proper Officer Detaining Vehicle To Issue Notice: Madras High Court Directs Release Of Vehicle And Goods

Case Title: Tvt.LAF Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Commercial Tax

The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has held that Section 129 of the CGST Act provides for the detention and seizure of the vehicle upon condition that an order of detention/seizure shall be passed at the time of detention/seizure and duly served upon the person transporting the goods.

No Excuse For Not Paying GST In Time From Its Electronic Cash Register: Madras High Court Upholds Interest Demand

Case Title: M/s.Srinivasa Stampings Versus The Superintendent of GST and Central Excise

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 202

The Madras High Court bench of Justice C. Saravanan held that the taxpayer is liable to pay interest if there is a belated payment of tax declared in the returns filed.

Form GST DRC-16 Merely Attaches Immovable Properties & Not Bank Account: Madras High Court Refuses To Quash Attachment Notice

Case Title: Tvl.G.Sankar Timber Depot Versus The State Tax Officer (Adjudication)

The Madras High Court bench of Justice C. Saravanan has held that form GST DRC-16 merely attaches immovable properties. There was no attachment to any bank accounts. The assessee appeared to be interested in dragging on the proceeding, though it appeared to be in arrears of huge amounts of tax.

Transition Of ITC cannot Be Denied Merely For Technical Difficulties: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.Vetrivel Explosives Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 208

The Madras High Court held that in case the department is unable to permit the filing of TRAN-1 belatedly, they have to credit the corresponding amount in the electronic cash register provided that the credit remained unutilized on the cut-off date.

Madras High Court Upholds Validity Of Section 6 Of The Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006

Case Title: M/s. LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another with connected cases.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (mad) 227

The Madras High Court recently upheld the validity of amendments made to Section 6 of The Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The court observed that in matters relating to tax, the interest of the State must be considered as against the interest of certain individuals.

Madras High Court Expunges 'Scathing' Remarks Against Actor Vijay In Entry Tax Case

Case Title: C. Joseph Vijay v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 28

In an appeal filed by Actor Vijay to remove the scathing remarks made by the single judge bench while dismissing his petition for tax exemption on a Rolls Royce Ghost Motor Car, Madras High Court has expunged the observations made by single judge bench in paras 3,4,7,8, 11 and 12 of the original order.

Today, a Division Bench of Justices Pushpa Sathyanarayana and Mohammed Shaffiq allowed the writ appeal filed by Actor Vijay and disposed off the connected miscellaneous petition with no costs.

Serious Allegations Of Availing Fraudulent GST ITC In Electronic Credit Ledger: Madras High Court Refuses Refund Of Amount

Case Title: M/s.MNS Enterprises Versus The Additional Director General Directorate of GST Intelligence

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 122

The Madras High Court bench of Justice C. Saravanan refused to grant a refund of the amount lying in the assessee's electronic cash ledger on the grounds that there were serious allegations against the assessee for having an availed fraudulent input tax credit (ITC) in the electronic credit ledger on the strength of a bogus and fictitious input tax invoice for discharging GST liability with no supply.

GST Dept. Should Issue DRC-1 Notice, Grant Fair Opportunity Of Hearing Before Passing Assessment Order: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s. V.R.S. Traders Versus Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 98

The Madras High Court has held that the DRC-01 notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act must be issued before passing the assessment order.

GST Dept. To Serve Physical Copy Of Show Cause Notice Until Technical Problems In GST Portal Are Resolved: Madras High Court

Case Title: Pushpam Reality Versus State Tax Officer

The Madras High Court comprising Justice C. Saravanan has held that the Goods and Service Tax (GST) department can continue service of the physical copy of the notice through registered post, speed post, or courier with acknowledgment to the assessee at their last known place of business or residence and upload the notice on the web portal. Once all technical problems are resolved, the practise of sending physical copies may be dispensed with.

Wrong Declaration In E-Way Bill: Madras High Court Quashes Penalty Under GST As There Was No Intention Of Tax Evasion

The Madras High Court bench of Justice C. Saravanan has quashed the penalty under GST for a wrong declaration in an e-way bill as there was no intention of tax evasion.

Madras High Court Directs GST Dept. To Release Detained Vehicle On Payment Of 25% Of Penalty

Case Title: M/s.RKS Agencies Versus State Tax Officer-I

The Madras High Court bench of Justice R. Suresh Kumar has directed the GST department to release the detained vehicle on the payment of 25% of the penalty.

Post Facto Changes In GST Registration: Madras High Court Quashes Penalty Imposed For Mismatch Of Address In Invoice And RC

Case Title: Algae Labs Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Tax Officer-I

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 166

The penalty imposed for mismatch of address in invoice and RC was quashed by the Madras High Court bench of Justice C. Saravanan on the grounds that there was a post facto alteration in GST registration.

Mere Signing Of Statement Admitting Tax Liability, Making Payments Under Stress Of Investigation Doesn't Amount To Self-Ascertainment: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s. Shri Nandhi Dhall Mills India Private Limited Versus Senior Intelligence Officer

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 167

The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anita Sumanth has held that merely because an assessee has, under the stress of investigation, signed a statement admitting tax liability and having also made a few payments as per the statement, it cannot lead to self-assessment or self-ascertainment.

GST ITC Refund Can't Be Denied Even If Taxpayer Has Claimed Duty Drawback: Madras High Court

Case Title: Numinous Impex (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs

The Madras High Court bench of Justice C. Sarvanan has held that the refund of input tax credit (ITC) cannot be denied even if the taxpayer has claimed duty drawback.

Pre-Deposit Payment Made By Parent Company Having Separate Service Tax Registration Amounts To Proper Compliance: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.St. John CFS Part Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise

The Madras High Court bench of Justice R. Subramanian and Justice N.Sathish Kumar has held that the pre-deposit payment made by the parent company having a separate service tax registration amounts to proper compliance.

Assessee To Claim Refund of Tax Collected By State Without Authority Within 3 Years From The Date of Payment: Madras High Court

Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu Versus Deputy Commissioner (CT) (FAC)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 179

The Madras High Court bench of Justice R.Mahadevan and Justice Mohhammed Shaffiq has held that any tax collected without authority would certainly amount to unjust enrichment and the assessees must claim a refund of the tax collected or retained by the state within three years from the date of their payments to the department.

Asian Paints To Furnish A Bank Guarantee For GST Department To Release The Detained Goods: Madras High Court

Case Title: Tvl.Asian Paints Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)

The Madras High Court bench of Justice M. Dandapani has directed the GST department to release the detained goods on furnishing of the bank guarantee by Asian Paints.

Calcutta High Court

Calcutta High Court Quashes Order Imposing Penalty For Expiry Of E-Way Bill As There Was No Intention To Evade Tax

Case Title: Ashok Kumar Sureka Versus Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Durgapur Range, Government of West Bengal

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 62

The Calcutta High Court has quashed the order imposing penalty for expiry of e-way bill as there was no intention to evade tax.

The single bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin has set aside the impugned order of the appellate authority as well as the order of the adjudicating authority and consequently, the petitioner will be entitled to get the refund of the penalty and tax paid on protest subject to compliance of all legal formalities.

Allegations Contained in SCN Were Vague: Calcutta High Court Suspends Order Cancelling GST Registration

Case Title: Galaxy Mechanical Engineering Equipments Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 80

The Calcutta High Court bench consisting of Justice ​​Md. Nizamuddin has suspended the order cancelling GST registration on the grounds that the allegations contained in the show cause notice were vague.

No Opportunity Of Hearing Was Given By The GST Department: Calcutta High Court Quashes Detention Order

Case Title: Precious Trade Link Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 84

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin, has quashed the detention order passed by the Goods and Service Tax Department (GST) on the grounds that the opportunity of hearing was not accorded to the assessee.

Genuine Transactions With Suppliers Whose GST Registration Cancelled: Calcutta High Court Allows GST ITC To Assessee

Case Title: Sanchita Kundu & Anr. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bureau of Investigation, South Bengal & Ors.

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin has held that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied on genuine transactions with suppliers whose GST registration was cancelled after the transaction.

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Issue Of Notice Of Hearing Is A Statutory Requirement Under Section 75(4) Of CGST Act Before Imposition Of Tax Or Penalty: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case title: SM/s. Sree Constructions, Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 49

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently allowed the writ petition by an assesse as there was no notice given to him before contemplating to pass an adverse Tax Assessment Order which is violative of Section 75(4) of CGST Act, 2017.

GST Appeal Filed Physically On Failure Of Digital Filing - Department Wrongly Rejected Appeal: Andhra High Court

Case Title: Ali Cotton Mill v. Appellate Joint Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 35

The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao and Justice J. Uma Devi has quashed the order rejecting the GST appeal which was not filed electronically.

Penalty Can't Be Imposed Without Giving The Opportunity Of Hearing To The Taxpayer: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: S.P.Y. Agro Industries Limited Vs Union of India

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that the GST penalty cannot be imposed without giving the taxpayer an opportunity of hearing.

The division bench of Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice V. Sujatha has observed that any rectification under Section 161 of the CGST Act, which adversely affects any person, is possible only after following the principles of natural justice.

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Owner Of Vehicle Not Vicariously Liable For Any Misdeclaration By Owner Of Goods: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Vijay Mamgain Vs State of Haryana

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 34

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the owner of the vehicle who is seeking only release of the vehicle is not liable to pay fine for the confiscated goods.

VAT ITC Can Be Availed On Evaporation Loss Of Petrol, HSD: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Case Title: Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana Versus M/s Gupta Brother, Bhiwani and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 36

The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench consisting of Justice Ajay Tewari, Justice Avnish Jhingan and Justice Pankaj Jain has ruled that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the Value Added Tax can be availed on the evaporation loss of petrol and High Speed Diesel (HSD).

"Intention To Evade Tax" Must Be Directly Connected to Activity Of Trader: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Case Title: M/s Raghav Metals Versus State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 37

The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justice Ajay Tewari and Justice Pankaj Jain has held that the intention to evade tax must be directly connected to the activity of the trader.

Claim Of Refund And Interest Shall Be Dealt Under The Existing Law On Central Excise And Not As Per CGST Act. Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects The Plea Of Revenue

Case Title: Commissioner Of Central Excise, Panchkula Versus M/S Riba Textiles Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 46

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the revenue department cannot take the plea of transfer of jurisdiction due to the GST regime against assessee's claim for refund of central excise duty and interest.

No Reason To Believe That Input Tax Credit Is Fraudulently Availed: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Rajnandini Metal Ltd. Versus Union Of India

The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justices Tejinder Singh Dhindsa and Pankaj Jain has held that there should be reason to believe that the input tax credit available in the Electronic Credit Ledger was obtained fraudulently or that the assesses are ineligible. The relevant officer must record the reasons, and a speaking order must be issued.

Jharkhand High Court

Recovery Proceeding Deemed To Be Stayed If Appellant Pays 10% Of Disputed Tax Amount During Pendency Of Appeal: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s Sri Ram Construction Versus UOI

The Jharkhand High Court bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has held that upon deposit of 10% of the disputed tax amount during the pendency of appeals, recovery of any remaining balance is deemed to have been stayed in view of Section 107 Sub-section (6) and (7) of the CGST Act, 2017.

No Manufacturing Activity Within State , ITC Cannot Be Denied Under JVAT Act: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Exide Industries Limited Versus The State Of Jharkhand And Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 29

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that Input Tax Credit can be denied on Inter-State sale or transfer of stock under Section 18(8)(ix) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 only when some manufacturing activity is undertaken by the assessee in the State.

The Bench, consisting of Justices Aparesh Kumar Singh and Deepak Roshan, has held that in a taxing statute there is no room for intendment and therefore Section 18(8)(ix) cannot be stretched to cover persons who are not manufacturers so as to deny them Input Tax Credit under the Act.

Interest Liability Under GST Can't Be Raised Without Initiating Adjudication Process If Assessee Raises Dispute: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Narsingh Ispat Limited Vs Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 30

The Jharkhand High Court bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has ruled that if an assessee disputes the liability of interest, either disputes its calculation or the leviability of interest, then the only option left for the Assessing Officer is to initiate a proceeding either under Section 74 or 74 of the CGST Act for adjudication of the liability of interest.

Show Cause Notice Without Containing Allegations Of Violations, Amounts To Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s Nkas Services Private Limited Versus State of Jharkhand

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 26

The Jharkhand High Court bench consisting of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has quashed the show cause notice issued under Goods and Service Tax (GST) for not containing the allegations of violation, amounting to a violation of principles of natural justice.

Interest On Belated Filing Of GSTR-3B Return Not Recoverable Without Adjudication: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: R.K. Transport Private Limited Versus The Union Of India Through The Principal Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax And Central Excise, Ranchi And Another.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 27

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that recovery of interest under CGST Act, 2017 for delay in filing the GSTR-3B return cannot be initiated without following any adjudication proceedings under the Act in the event the interest liability is disputed by the assessee.

GST Department's Failure To Follow Procedure Amounts Violation Of Natural Justice: Jharkhand High Court Quashes Summary Order In Form GST DRC-07

Case Title: M/s Narsingh Ispat Limited Versus Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 28

The Jharkhand High Court bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has quashed the summary order contained in Form GST DRC-07 as the department failed to follow the procedure prescribed in law before issuing a summary of the order on Form GST DRC-07, amounting to a violation of the principle of natural justice.

Meghalaya High Court

Rusk Is Different From Bread, VAT Exemption Available To Bread Can't Be Extended To Rusk: Meghalaya High Court

Case Title: M/s Saj Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Meghalaya & ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 7

The Meghalaya High Court bench consisting of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh has ruled that rusk is not bread and the Value Added Tax (VAT) exemption available to bread in the state of Meghalaya must be extended to rusk.

Applicability Of GST On Royalty Paid For Mining Limestone: Meghalaya High Court Stays GST Recovery

Case Title: M/s Hills Cement Company Limited vs. The Union of India & Ors

The Meghalaya High Court bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh has stayed the recovery of GST on royalty paid for mining limestone.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Cryptic Reasons For Denying Refund Claim Does Not Render The Order Non-Speaking: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Prism Johnson Limited Versus UOI

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the claim for refund has been declined by assigning reasons which may be cryptic on bare perusal but are sufficient to enable the assessee to know the exact cause for the rejection of the claim for refund.

The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Maninder S. Bhatti has observed that the reasons assigned for declining the refund claim cannot categorise the orders as being non-speaking. The order does not dissuade the assessee from knowing the mind of the adjudicating authority or dissuade him from filing an appeal.

Signature Of the Person Present Obtained in Panchanama, Madhya Pradesh High Court Refuses Re-measuring of Stock

Case Title: Sanjay Trading Company Versus State Of Madhya Pradesh

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to direct the re-measuring of the stock of coal lying in the premises as the search team has obtained the signatures of the persons present while carrying out the Panchanama.

The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Maninder S. Bhatti perused the panchanama and observed that on the date of search itself, the amount of tax and a penalty were deposited by the petitioner as discrepancies were found in the stock, and thus there was no question of any kind of seizure.

Advance Ruling Can't Be Sought After The Receipt Of The Notice: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case Title: M/s Saisanket Enterprise Versus Authority of Advance Ruling

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that the application under section 97 of the CGST Act for obtaining the advance ruling cannot be made before the Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) during the pendency of the issue before the authority and after the receipt of the notice.

The division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Amar Nath has observed that the petitioner approached the authority to obtain the advance ruling only after a search was conducted in which the evasion of SGST was found, which has resulted in the issuance of a show-cause notice. By the notice, the petitioner has been called upon to pay the remaining amount of GST/SGST liability and submit the reply. Since the petitioner has not paid GST at 18%, the issue is treated as pending before the authorities.

Benefit Of MEIS Scheme Can't Be Availed If Not Opted In Shipping Bill At The Time Of Export: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Adroit Industries (India) Ltd. Vs Union of India

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Amarnath Kesharwani has held that the benefit of the Merchandise Exports From India Scheme (MEIS) cannot be availed if it is not opted for in the shipping bill at the time of export.

Clerical Mistake In Address On E-Way Bill: Madhya Pradesh High Court Imposes Minor Penalty

Case Title: Technosteel Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Manindar Bhatti has held that a minor penalty can be imposed for a clerical mistake in the address on an e-way bill.

Delay Of 18 Months In Filing Appeal Without Reasonable Justifications: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Cancellation Of GST Registration

Case Title: M/s Rajdhani Security Force Pvt. Ltd Versus UOI

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Maninder S. Bhatti has upheld the cancellation of GST registration as there was a delay of 18 months in filing the appeal without reasonable justification.

Telangana High Court

Outright Rejection Of Stay Application Is Not Justified, Need To Exercise The Appellate And Revisional Jurisdiction Judicially:Telangana High Court

Case Title: Access Tough Doors P. Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner ST

The Telangana High Court has held that the appellate and revisional authorities must judiciously exercise their discretionary power to grant a stay under the Telangana VAT Act.

Chandigarh High Court

SCN Issued By DRI Was Without Authority of Law: Chhattisgarh HC Stays Proceedings

Case Title: Vijay Baid Versus Union Of India

The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu has quashed the show cause notice which was issued by the DRI and stayed the proceedings.

Chhattisgarh High Court

Wrongful Availment Of ITC: Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses Bail

Case Title: Paritosh Kumar Singh Versus State Of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 36

The Chhattisgarh High Court bench headed by Chief Justice Arup Kumar Goswami and Justice Gautam Chourdiya has refused to grant bail to a person allegedly involved in availment of fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC).

Gauhati High Court

Clarificatory Circular Operates Retrospectively And Does Not Bring Anything New: Gauhati High Court

Case Title: Sanjib Das versus Union of India and Ors.

The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that a circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) which only clarifies the CBIC's original instructions and does not bring anything new is clarificatory in nature and operates retrospectively.

The Single Bench of Justice Devashis Baruah held that the exceptions enumerated in the clarificatory circular issued by CBIC, that enumerated exceptions with respect to holding pre-show cause notice consultation, would operate retrospectively from the date of issuance of CBIC's original instructions relating to pre-show cause notice consultation.

Orissa High Court

Commissioner Can't Allow Deposit Of Interest Payment In Instalments: Orissa High Court

Case Title: M/s. P.K. Ores Pvt. Ltd. @ M/S. PK Minings Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax

The Orissa High Court bench of Justices Jawant Singh and Murahari Sri Raman has held that the Commissioner of CT & GST is not empowered to allow the deposit of interest payments in instalments.

ITC Transfer From One State To Another Is Not An Inward Supply: Orissa High Court

Case Title: M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. Versus Union of India

The Orissa High Court bench of Justice Jaswant Singh and Justice M.S. Raman has ruled that an input service distributor (ISD) can claim ITC only in the case of an inward supply, and an ITC transfer from one state to another is not an inward supply.

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Education Cess Lawfully Refunded To The Assessee, Can't Recover Later Based On Change Of View Of The Supreme Court: J&K and Ladakh High Court

Case Title: Commissioner of CGST and Commissioner of Central Excise versus M/s Narbada Industries

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that the revenue department cannot seek the return of the amounts lawfully refunded to the assessee in consonance with an earlier decision of the Supreme Court, on the ground that the Supreme Court has changed its opinion on the said matter in a decision rendered subsequently.

The Bench, consisting of Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sanjay Dhar, held that a case cannot be reopened after the expiry of the limitation period merely on the ground that subsequently the view of the court on the said aspect has changed or that subsequently a different opinion has been expressed by the courts in another case.

CESTAT

Intermediate Goods Captively Consumed For Manufacture Of Exempted Final Products Does Not Attract Excise Duty: CESTAT

Case Title: Spray King Agro Equipment Pvt Ltd Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot

The Ahmedabad Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), consisting of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and P.Anjani Kumar (Technical Member), has ruled that intermediate goods captively consumed for the manufacture of exempted final products do not attract excise duty.

Supply Of Bed Rolls Kits Amounts To Supplying Services To IRCTC, Chargeable To Service Tax: CESTAT

Case Title: Hakamichand D & Sons Versus C.S.T.-Service Tax - Ahmedabad

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that the supply of bedroll kits to passengers of air-conditioned classes and other classes on behalf of IRCTC attracts service tax.

The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and P.Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) observed that the supply of bedroll kits to passengers for and on behalf of IRCTC is in the nature of a "customer care service". Therefore, the services are appropriately classifiable under business auxiliary services.

IT Service Provided By Assessee To Associate Company In USA Amounts To Export Of Service: CESTAT

Case Title: Celtic Systems Private Limited Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-VADODARA-I

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has ruled that IT services provided by the assessee to the associate company in the USA amount to an export of services.

Credit Availed By Indian Overseas Bank On The Service Tax Paid On Deposit Insurance Service Is Eligible For CENVAT Credit: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. Indian Overseas Bank Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax

The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Sulekha Beevi C.S. (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has held that the credit availed by the Indian Overseas Bank on the Service Tax paid on the basis of the premium paid to the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC) for insuring deposits is eligible for CENVAT Credit.

No Limitation Applicable For Refund Amount Lying With Dept. Having The Nature Of Revenue Deposit: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. Aadhar Stumbh Township Pvt.Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Central Goods & Service Tax Commissionerate

The Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) has ruled that the limitation applicable for refund amount lies with the department having the nature of revenue deposit.

Service Tax Not Payable On Liquidated Damages Collected From Contractor: CESTAT

Case Title: M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Indore) Limited Versus Commissioner, Central Goods, Service Tax and Central Excise

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) ruled that service tax is not payable on liquidated damages collected from the contractor.

CENVAT Credit Cannot Be Claimed On Expenses Incurred On CSR: Delhi CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. Power Finance Corporation Ltd. versus Commissioner (Appeal), Central Excise & Service Tax, LTU, New Delhi

The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that expenses incurred by a person on activities related to its Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) cannot be termed as input services and thus, CENVAT Credit cannot be claimed on it.

The Bench, consisting of members Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member), ruled that the fact that the CSR is a legal responsibility does not make it an output service.

Availment Of Credit On The Strength Of Photocopies Of Invoices Is Just A Procedural Lapse: CESTAT Allows Cenvat credit

Case Title: DKNV Engineering Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Daman

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) has held that the availment of credit on the strength of photocopies of the invoices is just a procedural lapse and cannot be made the basis to disallow the cenvat credit.

Service Tax Cannot Be Levied On Reimbursement Of Expenses Incurred By The Service Provider: Reiterates CESTAT Delhi

Case Title: M/s Seher versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi – II

The Delhi Bench of CESTAT has reiterated that service tax cannot be levied on reimbursement of expenses incurred by the service provider.

The Bench, consisting of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member), held that since Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 has been held to be ultra vires by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India versus Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. (2018), the nature of services does not make any difference and that no service tax can be levied on reimbursements.

Assessee Entitled To Refund Of Education Cess And Krishi Kalyan Cess Lying Unutilized In CENVAT Account: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. International Seaport Dredging Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that the assessee is entitled to a refund of education cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess lying unutilized in the CENVAT account.

Unit Located In The SEZ Shall Be Treated As A Distinct Identity From Its Other Units: CESTAT Ahmedabad

Case Title: Tega Industries Limited versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara

The Ahmedabad Bench of CESTAT has held that if a unit of an enterprise is located in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ), the said SEZ Unit shall be treated as having a distinct identity from the other units of the said enterprise which are located outside the SEZ.

Therefore, the Single Bench of Judicial Member Ramesh Nair held that a claim for refund of the service tax paid by a SEZ Unit on the services received by it from its units located in a Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) could not be denied, even if the SEZ Unit was not a separate legal entity.

Foreign Origin Gold Bar With Unexplained Source Is Liable For Absolute Confiscation As It amounts To Importation Of Prohibited Goods: CESTAT

Case Title: The Commissioner of Customs Versus M.S. Alaudeen

The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of P.Dinesha (Judicial Member), while remanding the matter back, held that the gold bar with a foreign marking, the source of which is not explained, is liable for absolute confiscation since the same would amount to the importation of a prohibited good.

Liquidated Damages Does Not Attract Service Tax: CESTAT Hyderabad

Case Title: M/s. Krishnapatnam Port Company Limited versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Guntur

The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that receipt of liquidated damages by the service provider for breach of conditions under an agreement to provide services would not attract Service Tax.

Compensation Paid By Employee To Employer For Resigning From Service Without Giving Requisite Notice Is Not A Taxable Service: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. XL Health Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru South Commissionerate

The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and P.Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has held that any compensation paid by the employee to the employer for resigning from the service without giving the requisite notice, would not be termed as consideration for the contract of employment and would not fall within the preview of taxable service.

CESTAT Allows Refund Of CENVAT Credits On Service Tax Paid During GST Regime Under Reverse Charge Mechanism On Import Of Services

Case Title: M/s Brose India Automotive Systems Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST

The Chennai Bench of ITAT has ruled that subscription money received in advance by the DTH operators is not taxable.

The Bench, consisting of members V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member), held that the subscription money received by DTH operators is taxable only when the said amount is accrued to them, i.e., when the services are rendered by the DTH operators to the subscribers.

Compensation Received For Cancellation Of Coal Blocks Under Supreme Court Order, Not Liable To Pay Service Tax: Kolkata CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Limited versus Principal Commissioner of CGST & CX, Ranchi Commissionerate

The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that compensation received under a statute for cancellation of coal blocks/mines vide an order of the Supreme Court, cannot be considered as a taxable service of tolerating a situation and is thus not exigible to Service Tax.

The Bench, consisting of members P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao, (Technical Member), held that the question of tolerating something and receiving a compensation for such tolerance pre-supposes that the person had a choice to either tolerate or not tolerate, and that the person chose to tolerate. The CESTAT added that the appellant had not chosen to tolerate the cancellation since the cancellation was in pursuance of the order of the Supreme Court and not as a result of a contract to tolerate cancellation.

Galvanised Solar Structure Manufactured And Cleared For Initial Setting Up Of Solar Power Plants Exempted From Excise Duty: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. KEC International Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Goods & Service Tax (Appeals)

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that galvanised solar structures manufactured and cleared for the initial setting up of solar power plants are exempted from excise duty.

No Service Tax Payable On Service Charges Collected By Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation From Milk Unions: CESTAT Delhi

Case Title: M/s Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Limited versus Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur

The Delhi Bench of Custom, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that no service tax is payable on the service charges collected by the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation from the milk unions or district cooperative societies for the services rendered to them.

The Bench, consisting of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and technical member P.V. Subba Rao, held that although the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation and the milk unions/district cooperative societies are registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 and are thus distinct legal entities, the nature of the relationship between them continues to be that of a club and its members. The CESTAT ruled that no service tax was payable on the services rendered by the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation to the milk unions.

Composition Scheme On Works Contract Cannot Be Denied On The Ground That Service Tax Was Discharged Earlier: CESTAT Bangalore

Case Title: M/s MFAR Construction Private Limited versus C.C.E & C.S.T.- Bangalore Service Tax- I

The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has reiterated that Composition Scheme for payment of Service Tax on Works Contract cannot be denied merely on the ground of discharge of Service Tax under a different head prior to 01.06.2007.

The Bench, consisting of members P Dinesha (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member), held that Works Contract Services are liable to Service Tax only from 01.06.2007. The CESTAT ruled that the appellant could not be put to jeopardy for the reason that it had been paying Service Tax before 01.06.2007 even though it was not legally required to pay.

Proceedings Can't Be Initiated When Excise Duty Was Paid Prior To Issuance Of Show Cause Notice: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. Surya Alloy Industries Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST & CX

The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) has held that the authorities had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings as the assessee had paid the excise duty along with the interest prior to the issuance of the show cause notice.

Failure Of Customs Broker To Observe Due Diligence Leading To Facilitate Fake Importers: CESTAT Revokes Licence

Case Title: M/s. Sky Sea Services Versus Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) affirmed the revocation of the customs broker's licence because the customs broker failed to conduct due diligence, allowing fake importers to operate.

The two-member bench of S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) observed that the institution of customs brokers was created to facilitate the import and export of trade and, at the same time, to take care of the interests of revenue. Thus, a great responsibility has been cast upon the customs brokers to exercise due diligence while conducting their business.

CESTAT Allows Cenvat Credit To The Member Of Industries Association Who Received Services And Borne Expenditure

Case Title: Gujarat Guardian Limited Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara-ii

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) has held that the member of an industry association who has received the services and borne the expenditure is entitled to the cenvat credit.

CESTAT Allows Cenvat Credit On Insurance Services

Case Title: Milestone Preservatives Pvt. Limited

The Ahmedabad Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) has allowed the Cenvat credit on insurance services.

No Service Tax Leviable On Toll Collection, Toll Collector Not A Commission Agent: CESTAT Mumbai

Case Title: Souvenir Developers India Pvt Ltd versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax– I

The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that any amount retained by a toll collector while undertaking toll-collection activity does not attract service tax since the said activity does not constitute a service rendered by a commission agent and thus it does not fall within the purview of a 'business auxiliary service' under the erstwhile Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Service Tax Not Leviable On IPL Promotion Activities By Anil Kumble: CESTAT

Case Title: Anil Kumble Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bangalore-I Commissionerate

The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has held that the promotional activities undertaken by the former Indian skipper Anil Kumble shall not be treated as "business auxiliary services", so no service tax can be imposed.

Interest Free Security Deposits Are Not Exigible To Service Tax: CESTAT Ahmedabad

Case Title: Marwadi Shares & Finance Ltd versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that interest free refundable security deposits are not exigible to service tax since they are not collected in consideration for providing a service.

Unsubstantiated Show Cause Notice And Cancellation Of Licence: CESTAT Restore Customs Broker's Licence

Case Title: M/s Perfect Cargo & Logistics Versus Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (Airport and General)

The Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) headed by Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has restored the customs broker's licence as the show cause notice or the inquiry report lacked details about the non-existence of the exporter.

Exported Goods Cannot Be Confiscated Under Section 113 Of Customs Act: CESTAT Hyderabad

Case Title: Nosch Labs Pvt Ltd versus Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad

The Hyderabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that Section 113 of the Customs Act only provides for confiscation of goods that are to be exported and not for goods which have already been exported.

Service Tax Not Payable On Liquidated Damages: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has held that service tax is not payable on liquidated damages recovered on the failure to fulfil the contract.

Denial Of Availment Of CENVAT Credit On Performa Invoices, Despite All Information, Is Absolutely Wrong: CESTAT

Case Title: Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Versus Commissioner Appeals

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) held that the denial of availment of Cenvat Credit on performa invoices was absolutely wrong.

Amount On Alleged Wrongly Availed Cenvat Credit Deposited At Instance Of Audit Team Liable To Be Refunded In Absence Of SCN: CESTAT

Case Title: M/S Bird Audio Electronics Versus Commissioner Of CGST, North Delhi CGST Commissionerate

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the amount on alleged wrongly availed Cenvat Credit deposited at the instance of the audit team is liable to be refunded in absence of Show Cause Notice (SCN).

The bench of single member Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) has noted that the payment made by the assessee at the time of audit, in absence of any SCN for the same, cannot be held to be the payment against the demand raised by the Department without even going into the merits of the nature of demand.

Embossing Customer Name On Goods Not Amount To 'Branding' If Goods Are Not Sold By Customers: CESTAT Deletes 1% Excise Duty

Case Title: M/s.Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) while deleting the 1% of Excise Duty, held that embossing customer name on goods does not amount to 'Branding' if goods are not sold by customers.

The two member bench consisting Sulekha Beevi C.S. (Judicial Member) and P.Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has noted that as long as the goods are not sold by the customers of the appellant/assessee in the brand name which they are manufactured, the same cannot be held bearing brand name making them dutiable.

Issuance Of 2 SCN Demanding Short Paid Duty, Denying Cenvat Credit For Same Period Doesn't Amounts To 2 Assessments: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s Varun Beverages Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Alwar

The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has upheld the issuance of two show cause notices demanding the duty, which was short paid, and denying Cenvat credit respectively for the same period.

The two-member bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) did not find any illegality in Revenue issuing two show cause notices; one for recovery of irregularly availed Cenvat credit and another show cause notice for recovery of duty short paid. It does not amount to two assessments for the same period in this case.

Interest Of Buyer In Assessee's Business Not Established for Valuation of Excisable Goods: CESTAT Rejects Department's Appeal Seeking Valuation Of Goods Sold Prior To 2013

Case Title : M/s Khyati Ispat Private Limited vs Principal Commissioner, Central Tax & Central Excise

The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has rejected the department's appeal seeking valuation of goods sold prior to 2013 on the grounds that the interest of buyer in assessee's business was not established.

The two member bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V.Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that as Rule 10 (b) squarely covers the transaction, value has to be determined as per this Rule. For the goods cleared to the buyer, it should be assessed as if the assessee and the buyer are not related persons. In other words, the transaction value has to be accepted.

Gold Was Freely Importable By Normal Importer prior to DGFT Notification Dated 18 December, 2019: CESTAT

Case Title: Rajesh Exports Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore

The Banglore Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that gold was freely importable by the normal importer prior to the restrictions imposed by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) vide Notification dated 18 December 2019.

No Service Tax payable On Packed Food Sold As Take Away And Not Served In Restaurant: CESTAT

Case Title: Hotel Utsav Versus C.C.E. & S.T. SURAT-I

The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has ruled that service tax is not payable on packed food sold as take away and not served in the restaurant.

CESTAT Upholds Penalty Against Hindustan Coca Cola For Excise Duty Evasion On Pretext Of Stock Transfer

Case Title: Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner Central Excise & CGST, Jaipur-I

The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has upheld that penalty against Hindustan Coca Cola for the evasion of Excise Duty on the pretext of stock transfer.

Whether Nikon Eligible For Custom Duty Exemption Under Information Technology Agreement: Question Referred To Larger Bench

Case Title: M/s Nikon India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Imports) New Customs House, New Delhi

The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V.Subba Rao (Technical Member) has referred the issue of eligibility to avail the benefit of the exemption of Basic Custom Duty (BCD) under Information Technology Agreement (ITA) on Digital Still Image Video Cameras imported by Nikon to the larger bench.

"Input Service" No Longer Includes Services For Personal Use Or For The Employee Post April 1, 2011: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. MTL Instruments Private Limited Versus Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise

The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that the definition of input service as it stood prior to April 1, 2011, in which the phrase "activities relating to business" was included, which had a very wide ambit and would include almost all services used for the activities of business, however, after the amendment the services for personal use or for employees has been excluded from the definition of "input services".

CESTAT Directs Central Excise Dept. To Reconsider Refund of Cenvat Credit To Tata Consumer Products

Case Title: Tata Consumer Products Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Central Tax & Central Excise

The Banglore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of P.Dinesha (Judicial Member) directed the Central Excise Department to reconsider the refund of cenvat credit to Tata Consumer Products.

CESTAT Allows CENVAT credit Even If Goods Were not Classified as "Capital Goods" By The Supplier

Case Title: M/s Gelnova Laboratories (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) has allowed the CENVAT credit even when the goods were not classified as "capital goods" by the supplier.

Prasar Bharati Not Liable Pay Service Tax For Advertisement Services: CESTAT Directs Refund To Customers

Case Title: Prasar Bharati Versus Service Tax Commissioner

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of P.V.Subba Rao (Technical Member) and Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) directed Prasar Bharati to refund the Service Tax collected from customers for advertisement services within a period of two months.

No Suppression Of Fact By Adani Enterprise, Extended Period Of Service Tax Demand Not Invokable, says CESTAT

Case Title: Adani Enterprise Limited Versus C.S.T-Service Tax-Ahmedabad

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), consisting of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member), has ruled that the extended period of limitation was not invokable as there was no suppression or willful misstatement on the part of the Adani Enterprise.

No Service Tax Payable On Activity Of Installing And Maintaining Fixed Facility For Supplying Oxygen Gas: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. Goyal MG Gases Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bolpur

The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate (CESTAT) consisting of P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has ruled that service tax is not applicable on the activity of installing and maintaining a fixed facility for supplying oxygen gas.

Extended Limitation Cannot Claimed by Department, In Absence Of Fraud, Mis-Statement, Contumacious Conduct Of Taxpayer: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. KEC International Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) has held that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked by the excise department as there was no element of fraud, mis-statement or contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee.

'Ready to Eat' Popcorn Sold In Retail Packages Attracts 18% GST: AAR

Applicant's Name: M/s. Agro Tech Foods Limited

The Telangana Authority of Advance Ruling, consisting of members B. Raghu Kiran and S.V. Kasi Visweswara Rao, has ruled that 18% GST is payable on 'ready to eat' popcorn sold in retail packages.

GST Payable On Value Of Supply Which Includes Interest For Delayed Payment: AAR

Applicant's Name: M/s. Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board

The Telangana Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) bench of members S.V. Kasi Visweswara Rao and B. Raghu Kiranhas ruled that the Goods and Service Tax is payable on the value of supply, which includes interest, late fee, or penalty for delayed payment.

GST Is Payable 'On Fair Trade Premium': Kerala AAR

Applicant's Name: Fair Trade Alliance Kerala

The Kerala Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) bench of Sreeparvathy S.L. and Abraham Renn S. has ruled that GST is payable on fair trade premium, which forms part of the consideration and value of a taxable supply of goods.

Payment Of Equated Yearly Instalments And Interest On Delayed Payment Is Exigible To GST: Telangana AAR

Applicant's Name: M/s. Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board

The Telangana Bench of Authority for Advance Ruling, consisting of members B. Raghu Kiran and S.V. Kasi Visweswara Rao, has ruled that payment of Equated Yearly Instalments made under Annuities Model, including interest on delayed payments made to a contractor, is eligible for GST.

Transportation Of Parcels By GSRTC In Its Buses Attracts 18% GST: AAR

Applicant's Name: M/s. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

The Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) consisting of Atul Mehta and Arun Richard has ruled that 18% GST is payable on the transportation of parcels by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC) in its buses.

Services Provided For Collection And Disposal Of Bio-Medical Waste To State Government Is Exempt From Gst: West Bengal AAR

Name of the Applicant: SNG Envirosolutions Pvt Ltd

The West Bengal Bench of the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that services provided for collection and disposal of bio-medical waste to the State Government is exempt from GST.

GST Payable On Composite Supply Of Work Contract Involving Earth Work: Maharashtra AAR

Applicant's Name: Mahalakshmi Bt Patil Honai Construction

The Maharashtra Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR), consisting of members Ranji Magoo and T.R. Ramnani, has ruled that GST is payable on the composite supply of work contracts involving earth work.

Liquidated Damages And Penalties Due To Breach Of Conditions Of Contract From The Contractor Are Exigible To GST: AAR

Applicant's Name: Singareni Collieries Company Limited

The Telangana Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) consisting of members K.V. Kasi Visweswara Rao and B. Ragu Kiran has ruled that the liquidated damages and penalties received by the applicant due to breach of conditions of the contract by the contractor are exigible to tax under the CGST and SGST Acts.

ITC Can Be Availed on IGST Paid Both On Imports Intra & Inter-State Sales: AAR

Applicant's Name: M/s. Euroflex Transmissions (India) Private Limited

The Telangana Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) consisting of members B. Raghu Kiran and S.V. Kasi Visweswara Rao has ruled that IGST paid on imports is eligible to be availed as an Input Tax Credit (ITC) both on intra-state and inter-state sales.

Apple And Malt Cola Fizzy Attracts 28% GST And 12% GST Compensation Cess: Gujarat AAR

Applicant's Name: M/s. Mohammed Hasabhai Karbalai

Citation: ADVANCE RULING NO. GUJ/GAAR/R/2022/02

The Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) consisting of Atul Mehta and Arun Richard has ruled that 28% GST and 12% GST Compensation Cess are payable on Apple and Malt Cola Fizzy.

GST ITC Admissible On Bus Hired For Transportation Of Employees Having Capacity Of More Than 13 Passengers: Gujarat AAR

Applicant's Name: M/s. Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited

The Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) consisting of Atul Mehta and Arun Richard ruled that the GST ITC is admissible on buses hired for transportation of employees having a capacity of more than 13 passengers.

AAAR

Occupation Health Check-Up Service By The Hospital Are Health Care Services, No GST Payable: AAAR

Appellant's Name: Baroda Medicare Private Limited, Sunshine Global Hospital

The Gujarat Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) consisting of Seema Arora and Milind Torawane has ruled that no GST is payable on the occupational health check-up service by the hospital as it was covered under health care services.

Turmeric in Whole Form Is 'Agricultural Produce', Attracts 5% GST: AAAR

Appellant's Name: N. B. Patil

The Maharashtra Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) has ruled that 5% GST is payable on turmeric in its whole form, falling under the definition of "Agricultural Produce".

The two-member bench of Rajeev Kumar Mital and Ashok Kumar Mehta has observed that the first supply of turmeric in whole form by farmers, being supplied by a non-taxable person in the Agricultural Produce and Marketing Committee, is not liable to GST by virtue of the provisions of section 23 (1) (b) and 2 (107) of the CGST Act, 2017.

LNG Jetties Is Not In The Nature Of 'Plant And Machinery', ITC Not Eligible: Gujarat AAAR

Appellant's Name: M/s. Swan LNG Pvt. Ltd.

The Gujarat Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR), comprised of Seema Arora and Milind Torawane, ruled that LNG jetties are not in the nature of "plant and machinery," but rather serve as the foundation for the installation of re-gasification equipment, apparatus, and machinery.The input tax credit on inputs, input services, and capital goods for the purpose of building these LNG jetties is not admissible.

No GST Payable On Sewage Treatment Plant: AAAR

Appellant's Name: MIS. Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited

The Maharashtra Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) consisting of members Rajeev Kumar Mital and Ashok Kumar Mehta has ruled that sewage treatment plants (STP) are exempted from the goods and service tax (GST).

No GST & TDS Applicable On Renting Of Immovable Property To Social Justice Department: AAAR

The Maharashtra Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling, consisting of members Asok Kumar Mehta and Rajiv Kumar Mital, has ruled that the renting of immovable property to the social justice department is exempt from GST and TDS.

AAAR : No GST Leviable On Lease Of Buses To Public Transport Department

Appellant: The Principal Commissioner Central Tax, Guntur CGST Commissionerate

The Andhra Pradesh Bench of the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR), consisting of members Suresh Kishnani and Ravi Shankar Narayan, upheld the order of the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) holding that the lease of buses by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) to the Public Transport Department (PTD) of the Government of Andhra Pradesh was exempt from GST.

Printing Of Pamphlet/Leaflet Falls Under The Category Of Supply Of Service, Attracts 18% GST: AAAR

Appellant's Name: Temple Packaging Pvt. Ltd.

The Daman Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) consisting of Gaurav Singh Rajawat (State Tax) and Seema Arora (Central Tax) while upholding the ruling of the Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR), held that printing of pamphlet/leaflet falls under the category of supply of service and it attracts GST at the rate of 18%.

Mango Pulp/Puree' Attracts 18% GST: AAAR

Appellant's Name: M/s. Sri Manjunatha Fruit Canning Industries

The Andhra Pradesh Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) consisting of Suresh Kishnani (Central Tax) and S.Ravi Shankar Narayan (State Tax) has ruled that 18% GST is chargeable on Mango Pulp/Puree'.

18% GST Payable On Pizza Topping As Pizza Topping Is Not Pizza: AAAR

Applicant's Name: Khera Trading Company

The Haryana Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) bench consisting of Amit Kumar Aggarwal and Anil Kumar Jain held that 18% Goods and Service Tax (GST) is payable on pizza topping as pizza topping is not pizza.

GST ITC Not Allowable to BMW On Demo Car Or Vehicle: AAAR

Appellant Name: BMW India Pvt. Ltd.

The Haryana Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) bench consisting of Amit Kumar Aggarwal and Anil Kumar Jain ruled that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) is not allowable on demo cars/vehicles.

Cooking Cream Attracts 18% GST: AAAR

Appellant's Name: Khera Trading Company

The Haryana Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) bench consisting of Amit Kumar Aggarwal and Anil Kumar Jain has ruled that 18% Goods and Service Tax (GST) is payable on the cooking cream.

AAR

Computer Software Supplied To Public Funded Research Institutions Attracts 5% GST: Karnataka AAR

Applicant's Name: Keysight Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.

The Karnataka Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR), consisting of members Dr. M.P.Ravi Prasad and T.Kiran Reddy, has ruled that 5% GST is payable on computer software supplied to public-funded research institutions.

No GST Leviable In The Hands Of Employer On Amount Representing Employees Portion of canteen charges: Gujarat AAR

Applicant' Name: M/s. Cadila Healthcare Limited

The Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) consisting of members Atul Mehta and Arun Richard ruled that no GST is leviable in the hands of the employer on an amount representing the employee portion of canteen charges.

Dismantling Of Existing Sleeper And Installation Of New Sleepers For Railways Attracts 12% GST: West Bengal AAR

Applicant's Name: Utkarsh India Limited

The West Bengal Authority of Advance (AAR), consisting of members Brajesh Kumar Singh and Joyjit Banik, has ruled that the dismantling of existing sleeper fixings and/or installation of H-Bean Steel sleepers amounts to the execution of original work and would attract 12% GST.

Transfer Of Business Unit Shall Be Treated As A Supply Of Services: West Bengal AAR

Applicant's Name: Cosmic Ferro Alloys Limited

The West Bengal Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR), consisting of members Brajesh Kumar Singh and Joyjit Banik, has ruled that the transfer of business units shall be treated as a supply of services.

Composite Supply Of Hospital Construction Works For Govt Entity Attracts 18% GST: Maharashtra AAR

Applicant's Name: KPC Projects Ltd.

The Maharashtra Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR), consisting of members Rajiv Magoo and T.R. Ramnani, has ruled that 18% GST is payable on the composite supply of hospital construction works for government entities.

Bus Body Building On Chassis Owned By GST Registered Customer Attracts 18% GST: Gujarat AAR

Applicant's Name: Vasant Fabricators Pvt. Ltd.

The Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) consisting of members Arun Richard and Atul Mehta ruled that 18% GST is payable on bus body building on chassis owned by GST registered customers and unregistered customers.

GST Not Leviable On Services By Security Manager Located Outside India For Subscription To Secured Notes : Gujarat AAR

Applicant's Name: M/s. Adani Green Energy Ltd

The Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR), consisting of members Atul Mehta and Arun Richard, has ruled that GST is not leviable on services by security managers located outside India for subscription to secured notes placed in the USA.

Air Circulation Fans Supplied To Poultry House For Providing Ventilation To Livestock Attracts 18% GST: Gujarat AAR

Applicant's Name: M/s. Naimunnisha Nadeali Saiyed (legal name M/s. Star Enterprise)

The Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR)consisting of Arun Richard and Atul Mehta has ruled that the 18% GST is payable on air circulation fans supplied to poultry houses for the purpose of providing ventilation to livestock.

Sale Of Second Hand 'Paintings' Attracts 12% GST: Maharashtra AAR

Applicant's Name: M/s. Saffron Art Private Limited

The Maharashtra Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) consisting of Rajiv Magoo and T.R. Ramnani has ruled that the 12% GST is payable on the sale of second-hand paintings.

GST Payable On Fees Collected Towards Training In Respect Of Football, Basketball, Athletic, Cricket, swimming, Karate and Dance: AAR

Applicant's Name: Navi Mumbai Sports Association

The Maharashtra Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) consisting of Rajib Magoo and T.R. Ramnani has ruled that GST is payable on fees collected towards training in respect of football, basketball, athletics, cricket, swimming, karate, and dance.

Liquidated Damages Recovered For Delay In Completion Of Project Attracts 18% GST, Rules Telegana AAR

Applicant: M/s. Achampet Solar Private Limited

TSAAR Order No.07/2022

The Telangana Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), consisting of members B. Raghu Kiran and S.V. Kasi Visweswara Rao, ruled that liquidated damages recovered by Applicant for delay in commissioning under an agreement constitutes "supply" under the Goods and Service Tax (GST) law, attracting a levy of 9% GST under the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) and State Goods and Service Tax (SGST) Act each.

18% GST Payable On Supply Of Functional Cattle Feed Plant, Inclusive Of Erection, Installation, Commissioning: AAR

Applicant's Name: M/s IDMC Ltd

The Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the 18% GST is applicable on supply of a functional Cattle Feed Plant, inclusive of its Erection, Installation and Commissioning and related works.

Education And Training In Physical, Mental, Spiritual Practices Of Yoga Attracts 18% GST: AAR

Applicant's Name: M/s Stonorti Marketplace Private Limited

The Rajasthan Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that 18% of Goods and Service Tax (GST) is payable on education and training in physical, mental, spiritual practices of Yoga.

Construction Of Administrative Buildings For TSIIC Attracts 18% GST: AAR

Applicant's Name: M/s. Siddhartha Constructions

The Telangana Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that 18% GST is applicable on construction of administrative buildings for Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (TSIIC).

The two-member bench of B. Raghu Kiran (Central Tax) and S.V. Kasi Visweswara Rao (State Tax) has observed that the works contract executed by the applicant for construction of Administrative building for TSIIC falls under Sr. No. 3(vi) of Notification No. 11/2017-CT (Rate) as amended till date and therefore taxable at the rate of 6% under CGST & SGST each.

Obesity Is Not A Disease: 12% GST Payable On Pharmaceutical Pellets, Granules Except Orlistat Pellet: AAR

Applicant's Name: Smt. Rama Devi Guttikonda

The Telangana Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that 12% GST payable on pharmaceutical pellets, and granules except Orlistat Pellet as obesity is not a disease.

Leasing & Maintaining Of Industrial Gas Plant Doesn't Qualify As "Job Work": AAR

Applicant's Name: M/s IOCL

The Orissa Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) consisting of G.K. Pati (CGST Member) and Hrushikesh Mistra (SGST Member) has ruled that the leasing and maintenance of hydrogen and nitrogen gas plants does not qualify as "job work".

Poultry Crates Attracts 18% GST: AAR

Applicant's Name: Nilkamal Limited

The Maharashtra Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) consisting of Rajiv Mangoo and T.R. Ramnani has ruled that Goods and Service Tax (GST) at the rate of 18% is applicable on poultry crates, which can be treated as "articles for the conveyance or packing of goods, or plastics".

Distillery Wet/Dry Grain Soluble Sold As Cattle Feed Attracts 5% GST: AAR

Applicant's Name: M/s. Allied Blenders and Distillers Private Limited

The Telangana Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) consisting of Raghu Kiran (Central Tax) and S.V. Kasi Visweswara Rao (State Tax) has ruled that 5% Goods and Service Tax (GST) is payable on distillery wet/dry grain soluble which is sold as cattle feed.

Membership Fee Collected By Club Exigible To GST: AAR Maharashtra

Applicant Name: M/S The Poona Club Ltd.

The Maharashtra Bench of the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), consisting of members Rajiv Magoo and T.R. Ramnani, has ruled that the membership fee and annual subscription fee collected by a Club from its members is exigible to GST under the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act and the State Goods and Service Tax (SGST) Act.

Rent Free Accomodation Provided By Partner To Partnership Firm Is Exigible To GST: Tamil Nadu AAR

Applicant: Shanmuga Durai

The Tamil Nadu Bench of the Authority for Advance Ruling, consisting of members T.G. Venkatesh and K. Latha, has ruled that GST is liable to be paid in respect of properties of a Partner rented to a partnership firm, even if it is free of rent, to carry out the business of the firm, since the activity is in furtherance of business and amounts to supply under Section 7 read with Schedule 1 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Schools Not Entitled To Pay GST On Canteen And Transportation Services: AAR

Applicant's Name: Rahul Ramchandran

The Maharashtra Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) consisting of Rajiv Magoo and T.R. Ramnani has ruled that the schools are not liable to pay GST on the canteen and the transportation services that are furnished by schools.

Sale Of Car By Company After Using It For Business Purpose Attracts 18% GST: AAR

Applicant's Name: M/s. Dishman Carbogen Amcis Limited

The Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) consisting of Arun Richard and Atul Mehta has ruled that 18% GST is payable on the sale of a car by a company after using it for business purposes.

Supply Of Works Contract Services To Nagar Nigam Attracts 12% GST: AAR

Applicant's Name: M/s. Amnex Infotechnologies Pvt. Ltd

The Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) consisting of Arun Richard and Atul Mehta has ruled that 12% GST is payable on the supply of work contract services to Nagar Nigam.

GST Payable On Medical Health Insurance Premium For Employees: AAR

Applicant's Name: M/s. Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply And Sewerage Board

The Telangana Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) consisting of B. Raghu Kiran and S.V. Kasi Visweswara Rao has observed that GST is payable on medical health insurance premiums for employees.

GST Not Payable On Monthly Collection Not Exceeding Rs.7500 Per Member Of RWA: AAR

Applicant's Name: M/s. Jayabheri orange county owners association

The Telangana Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) consisting of B. Raghu Kiran and S.V. Kasi Visweswara Rao has ruled that GST is not payable on monthly collection not exceeding Rs. 7500 per member of the Resident Welfare Association (RWA).

GST Payable On Receipt Of Gratuitous Payment From Outgoing Member: AAR

Applicant's Name: Monalisa Co-Operative Housing Society Limited

The Maharashtra Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) consisting of T.R. Ramnani and Rajiv Magoo has ruled that GST is payable on receipt of gratuitous payment from outgoing members.

ITC Admissible On GST Paid On GTA Service Despite Vehicles Travelling Empty in Return Journey: AAR

Applicant's Name: M/s. Vadilal Enterprises Ltd.

The Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) is admissible on GST paid on goods transport agency (GTA) service supplied to it, despite refrigerated vehicles travelling empty during the return journey.

18% GST payable On PV DC Cables: Maharashtra AAR

Applicant's Name: Leoni Cable Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd.

The Maharashtra Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR), consisting of Rajiv Magoo and T.R. Ramnani, has ruled that 18% GST is payable on PV DC cables.

No GST Payable On Reimbursement Of Stipend Paid To Trainees: AAR

Applicant's Name: Patle Eduskills Foundation

The Maharashtra Authority of Advance ruling (AAR) has ruled that GST is not payable on the reimbursement of stipend paid to trainees by industry partners.

No GST Payable For Movement Of Goods Between Two Units Working Under Same GSTIN: Rajasthan AAR

Applicant's Name: M/s Mody Education Foundation

The Rajasthan Bench of Authority of Advance Ruling, consisting of Vikas Kumar Jeph and M.S. Kavia has ruled that GST is not payable on the movement of goods between two units working under the same GSTIN.

No GST Payable On Work Of 'Shaheed Dwar' At Banjarawala, Dehradun: Uttarakhand AAR

Applicant's Name: M/s Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited

The Uttarakhand Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) consisting of Anurag Mishra and Rameshvar Meena has ruled that no GST is payable on the work of 'Shaheed Dwar' at Banjarawala, Dehradun.

GST Not Payable On RCM Basis On Commission Paid To The Overseas Commission Agent: AAR

Applicant's Name: M/s. Dry Blend Foods Pvt Ltd

The Uttarakhand Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR)consisting of Anurag Mishra and Rameshvar Meena has ruled that GST is not payable on the basis of the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) on the commission paid to the Overseas Commission Agent.

Direct Tax

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Saves Over 90,000 Income Tax Reassessment Notices Issued After 2021 Amendment By Deeming Them As Notices Under Section 148A

Case Title: Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 444

The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, directed that reassessment notices under Section 148 of the unamended Income Tax Act which were issued beyond 01.04.2021 (the effective date of amendment of the said provision by the Finance Act, 2021) to be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and be construed as show cause notices in terms of section 148A(b).

Equilibrium Between Power Of The Income Tax Dept. Of Reassessment And Rights Of The Assessee: Supreme Court

Case Title: Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 444

The Supreme Court, by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, saved over 90,000 Income Tax Reassessment notices issued after the 2021 Amendment by deeming them as notices under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act.

Income Deduction For State Govt Undertakings - 'Exclusivity' Under S. 40(a)(iib) of Income Tax Act Not Based On Number Of Undertakings : Supreme Court

Case name: Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing and Marketing Corporation Ltd versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 4

The Supreme Court has rejected the argument raised by the Kerala State Beverages Corporation that it is entitled to deduct the levies made by the state government on it from income. The Beverages Corporation's claim was on the premise that the license given to by the State Government to trade in liquor was not 'exclusive'.

TDS On MACT Awards: Supreme Court Asks Centre To Look Into Unclaimed Refunds Of Claimants Who Are Not IT Assessees

Case: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. vs. Union of India

The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Central Government to look into the issue of money deduced from motor accident compensation awards as Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) lying as unclaimed refunds with respect to claimants who may not come within the bracket of Income Tax assesses.

Supreme Court Allows Adjustment Of Installments Made Under Income Declaration Scheme For Computing Tax Liability

Case Title: Yogesh Roshanlal Gupta Vs CBDT

A Bench of Supreme Court, consisting of Justices U.U. Lalit and P.S. Narasimha, allowed the adjustment of installments made under the "Income Declaration Scheme, 2016" in computing the tax liability of the Assessee for the relevant assessment years.

Immunity Under Income Declaration Scheme Available Only To The Declarant; Can't Be Extended To Another Assessee : Supreme Court

Case Title : Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Circle 1(2) versus M/s MR Shah Logistics Private Ltd

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 323

The Supreme Court has found fault with a Gujarat High Court judgement for extending the immunity under the "Income Declaration Scheme" (IDS) to an assessee who was not the declarant under the scheme.

Banks Exempted From Deducting Tax At Source While Paying Interest To Statutory Corporations : Supreme Court Reiterates

Case Name: Union Bank of India v.Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Kanpur

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 278

The Supreme Court has reiterated that Banks are exempted from the mandate of Section 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to deduct tax at the source (TDS), on payment of interest to corporations established by a statute.

Supreme Court Remits Tax Appeal Back To Rajasthan High Court, Says High Court Cannot Dispose Of Appeal With A One Paragraph Order

Case Title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) Versus M/S. Motisons Entertainment India Pvt. Ltd.

The Supreme Court has ruled that a High Court is not justified in disposing of a tax appeal with a one paragraph order without discussing the issues arising for consideration.

Income Tax Act - Loss Suffered Due To Exchange Fluctuation While Repaying Loan Can Be Regarded As Revenue Expenditure : Supreme Court

Case Title: Wipro Finance Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 418

Allowing the appeal filed by Wipro Finance Ltd., the Supreme Court observed that the loss suffered owing to exchange fluctuation can be regarded as revenue expenditure and thus an allowable deduction. The bench comprising Justices allowed the appeal against High Court judgment which had reversed the above view taken by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Delhi High Court

Show Cause Notice Mailed To The Wrong Email Address: Delhi High Court Remands The Matter To The Assessing Officer For A Fresh Decision

Case Title: M/s Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 545

The Delhi High Court, consisting of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Preetam Singh Arora, has remanded the matter to the assessing officer for a fresh decision as the department mailed the show cause notice to the wrong email address.

Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Order Issued Without Considering The Reply Filed By The Assessee

Case Title: Karida Real Estates Private Limited Versus ACIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 546

The Delhi High Court, consisting of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Preetam Singh Arora, has quashed the reassessment order issued without considering the reply filed by the assessee.

Delhi High Court Quashes Assessment Order For Not Giving Opportunity To File Objection To SCN

Case Title: Jindal Exports and Imports Private Limited Vs DCIT

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has quashed the assessment order as the assessee was not given an opportunity to file an objection to the show cause notice.

Underreporting Of Income Due To Re-Computation Of Disallowance By The AO, Does Not Amount To Misreporting Of Income: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP. versus National Faceless Assessment Centre & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 568

The Delhi High Court has ruled that where the underreporting of income allegedly done by the assessee is due to the re-computation of the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer, it would not amount to misreporting of income.

The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, observed that the underreporting of income by the assessee was due to the increase in the disallowance made under Section 14A, which was voluntarily estimated by the assessee and later recalculated by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the same material.

Notice Issued Under Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act Against A Deceased Assessee Is Invalid : Reiterates Delhi High Court

Case Title: Davinder Singh Thapar versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 575

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground of escapement of income from assessment, against a deceased assessee is invalid in law.

The Division Bench of Justices Jyoti Singh and Anoop Kumar Mendirattaobserved that though the notices were issued by the revenue authorities pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court, however, the said order did not deal with the issue of whether the notices could be issued against the deceased assesses. Therefore, the Court quashed the notices issued by the revenue authorities against the deceased assessee.

Right To File Objection To SCN Can't Be Denied Due To One Day Delay: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ernst & Young, US LLP Versus ACIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 586

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora ruled that the right to file an objection to the Show Cause Notice cannot be denied owing to a one-day delay.

Just 3 Days' Time Granted To Respond To The Income Tax Notice: Delhi High Court Remands The Matter Back To Assessing Officer After Setting Aside

Case Title: Shubham Thakral Vs ITO

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has remanded the matter back to the assessing officer as just 3 days' time was granted to respond to the income tax notice.

Whether Income Tax Demand And Penalty Extinguished In CIRP? Delhi High Court Stays Demand Notice

Case Title: Indo Enviro Integrated Solution Limited Versus ACIT

The Delhi High​​ Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh stayed an income tax assessment order and consequential demand and notice of penalty, which were assailed on grounds of being in contravention of the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

Refusal To Fill Consent Form To Obtain Information About Swiss Bank Account, Delhi High Court Upholds Penalty

Case Title: Mrs. Jayanti Dalmia Versus DCIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 203

The Delhi High Court has upheld the penalty issued under the Income Tax ActIncome Tax Act, 1961 upon an assessee who had failed to fill the consent-cum-waiver form to enable the tax authorities to obtain information about the alleged Swiss Bank accounts held by it.

Transaction, Being Revenue Neutral, Does Not Affect The Interest Of Revenue, Delhi High Court Directs Refund

Case Title: Ericsson India Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 222

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Jasmeet Singh has directed the department to release the refund as the transaction was revenue neutral, and did not affect the interest of revenue.

Income Tax Authority Did Not Consider The Reply Filed By Assessee; Delhi High Court Sets Aside Penalty Imposed And Directs Fresh Consideration

Case Title: Mayur Batra Versus ACIT And Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 225

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a penalty order passed by the income tax authority under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without granting a hearing to the assessee is violative of the principles of natural justice.

Faceless Assessment Scheme Does Not Mean No Personal Hearing, Mandatory Requirement U/S 144B Of Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., WP (C) 14528/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 20

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Central government's recent 'faceless assessment scheme', launched with an aim to eliminate the human interface between the taxpayer and the income tax department, does not mean that the assess shall not be given a personal hearing.

Reassessment Notice U/S 148 Of Income Tax Act Issued Against A Dead Person Is Null & Void: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Dharamraj v. Income Tax Officer

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 125

The Delhi High Court held that a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1861 against a dead person is null and void.

Information From Property Dealers Or Websites Not Cogent Evidence On Adequacy Of Rent For Invoking Section 13(2)(B) Of Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Versus Hamdard National Foundation (India)

A Bench of Delhi High Court, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla, held that in the absence of an independent inquiry, the revenue authorities cannot solely rely on the opinion of property broker firms and websites to determine the adequacy of rent received for invoking section 13(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Delhi High Court Excludes Time Spent Prosecuting Tax Appeal Before An Authority Without Jurisdiction, Rules Revision Petition Not Time Barred

Case Title: KLJ Organic Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 150

A Bench of Delhi High Court, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla, excluded the time spent in prosecuting a tax appeal before an authority devoid of jurisdiction in computing the limitation period for filing a revision petition under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Delhi High Court Directs Disposal Of Nokia's Rectification Application Over Refund Of Rs. 58 Crores Within Six Weeks

Case Title: Nokia India Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 155

A Bench of Delhi High Court, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla, directed the revenue authorities to decide Nokia's rectification application filed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in accordance with law by way of a reasoned order within six weeks.

Neither Rational Nexus Nor Fresh Material To Believe Escapement Of Income: Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice

Case Title: Kurz India Private Limited Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, New Delhi

Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 174

The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on the grounds that the reason to believe was invalid, had no rational nexus to the belief for escapement of income and there was no fresh material on record to initiate reassessment proceedings.

Application For Compounding Of Offence Under Section 276CC Income Tax Act Cannot Be Rejected If Conviction Is Set Aside By The Special Judge: Delhi HC

Case Title : Jai Singh Goel Versus Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 175

A Bench of the Delhi High Court, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla, has ruled that an application seeking compounding of the offence under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could not be rejected on the ground that the Assessee had not been acquitted of the criminal charges, if his conviction with respect to the given offence has been set aside by the Special Judge, CBI.

Delhi High Court: Findings Of Fact Recorded By ITAT Not Perverse, Cannot Be Interfered Under Section 260A

Case Title: Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi Versus Shugan Chandra Kothari Trust

The Delhi High Court has ruled that in an appeal to the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 there can be no interference with the finding of fact if it involves re-appreciation of the evidence.

Amount Received Under Distribution Agreement Of Computer Software Not 'Royalty' If No Right To Transfer Copyright: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2 Versus Gracemac Corporation

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 184

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an amount received under a distribution agreement with respect to a computer software did not amount to 'royalty' under the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the agreement does not create a right to transfer the copyright with respect to it.

Appeal U/S 260A Of Income Tax Act Can't Be Entertained Except On The Ground Of Perversity/Lack Of Evidence: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)- 3 Versus M/s Agson Global Pvt. Ltd.

The Delhi High Court bench consisting of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Talwant Singh has dismissed the appeal against the deletion of income tax addition for share or bogus purchases or cash deposits and held that appeal under section 260A of Income Tax Act cannot be entertained by High Court except on the grounds of perversity or for the complete lack of evidence.

Income Tax Dept. To Decide On Rectification Application Filed By American Express, Grant Refund If Any: Delhi High Court

Case Title: American Express India Private Limited Versus ACIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 289

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has directed the income tax department to decide on the rectification application filed by American Express and grant a refund, if any, along with the interest.

Charitable Institution Can't Be Denied Income Tax Exemption For Collecting Service Charges From Its Donors To Defray Administrative Cost: Delhi High Court

Case Title: CIT (E) Versus India HIV Aids Alliance

Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 294

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that charitable institutions cannot be denied income tax exemption for collecting service charges from their donors to defray administrative costs.

Non Specification Of Penalty Provisions In Penalty Notice And Denial Of Immunity; Delhi High Court Holds That Assessee Is Eligible For Immunity, Says Tax Payer Should Be Incentivised

Case Title: Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte. Ltd. Versus ACIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 257

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the action of income tax authorities denying the benefit of immunity from penalty under Section 270AA of Income Tax Act to the assessee on the ground that penalty was initiated under Section 270A for misreporting of income is arbitrary since the penalty notice issued by the authorities failed to specify the limb under which the penalty proceedings were initiated.

Disputed Tax Demand, Pre-Condition To Deposit 20 % Of The Disputed Tax For Stay Of Recovery Proceedings, Can Be Relaxed In Appropriate Cases: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Tata Teleservices Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 259

The Delhi High Court has ruled that requirement of payment of twenty percent of disputed tax demand is not a pre-requisite in all cases for putting recovery of demand in abeyance during the pendency of the first appeal.

The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Dinesh Kumar Sharma, held that the order of the income tax authority disposing of assessee's application for stay against recovery of disputed tax demand without considering the issues of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury to the assessee was a non-reasoned order.

Scholarship By Hamdard Foundation, Exemption Under Income Tax Act Can't Be Denied: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi versus Hamdard National Foundation (India)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 302

The Delhi High Court has upheld the factual findings made by the CIT (A) and ITAT that the merit-cum scholarship/financial assistance provided by Hamdard National Foundation was not confined to students of a particular religious community, and therefore exemption under Section 11 of Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be denied to it.

If Principles Of Natural Justice Are Violated, Writ Remedy Is Available Despite Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Jindal Realty Limited versus National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 376

The Delhi High Court has quashed an assessment order passed by the revenue department without issuing a prior show cause notice and draft assessment order to the assessee. The High Court has ruled that the assessment order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the mandatory procedure prescribed under the "Faceless Assessment Scheme" under the Income Tax Act.

Delhi High Court Stays Reopening of Income Tax Assessment Keeping In View The Credentials Of BHEL

Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Versus PCIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 378

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has stayed the reopening of income tax assessments, keeping in view the credentials of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL).

Non Filing Of Response Due To Technical Glitch In E-Filing Portal: Delhi High Court Quashes The Order And Directs Fresh Hearing

Case Title: Ankit Kaul Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 402

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that the taxpayer could not file a response under the Faceless Scheme due to a technical glitch in the e-filing portal.

Delhi High Court Upholds Order Of Revenue Department Imposing Enhanced Compounding Charges On Subsequent Offences

Case Title: M/s Maspar Industries Private Limited & Ors. versus Chief Commissioner of Income Tax TDS & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 411

The Delhi High Court has upheld the order of the revenue department imposing enhanced compounding charges on subsequent applications for compounding of offences relating to late deposit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS).

Sufficiency Of The Correctness Of Material Is Not To Be Considered While Issuing Reassessment Notice: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Kedar Nath Babbar Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 434

The Delhi High Court held that the court was only required to see whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the department could reopen the assessment. The sufficiency of the correctness of the material cannot be considered while issuing the reassessment notice.

Time Of 8 Hours To File Reply To Show Cause Notice, Not Reasonable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Rahul Biala Vs ITO

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 455

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that the time of eight hours to file a reply to the show cause notice was neither reasonable nor effective. The assessee could not have provided relevant information and documents to establish his case in such a short period of time.

AO & PCIT Failed To Consider Balance Of Convenience And Irreparable Injury While Deciding The Stay Application: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Seven Seas Hospitality Private Limited Versus PCIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 467

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that neither the Assessing Officer nor the Principal Commissioners of Income Tax (PCIT) have considered the three basic principles, i.e., the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, while deciding the stay application.

Delhi High Court Directs Designated Committee To Manually Process Payments Of Assessee Under SVLDR Scheme

Case Title: SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Ministry of Finance

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 468

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Poonam A. Bamba has directed the designated committee to manually process payments of an assessee under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS).

Non Consideration Of Detailed Reply To Show Cause Notice Submitted After Stipulated Time, Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Order

Case Title: Divya Capital One Private Limited Vs. ACIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 475

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has quashed the reassessment order, alleging income of more than Rupees one lakh crore having escaped assessment on the grounds of violation of natural justice.

Initiation Of Reassessment Proceedings By Income Tax Officer Without Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Quashes The Proceedings

Case Title: Indus Tower Ltd. Versus ITO

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 477

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that since the petitioner jurisdictional Assessing Officer is headquartered in Delhi, the income tax officer from Jaipur had no authority to send a notice proposing the beginning of reassessment proceedings.

No Opportunity Of Personal Hearing Granted To Taxpayer: Delhi High Court Quashes Assessment Order

Case Title: Omkar Nath Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Talwant Singh has quashed the assessment order as an opportunity of personal hearing was not granted to the taxpayer.

Licensing Of Software Products By Microsoft Is Not Taxable In India As Royalty: Delhi High Court

Case Title: CIT Versus Microsoft Corporation

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 483

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain has ruled that licensing of software products by Microsoft in the Territory of India by Microsoft is not taxable in India as royalty.

Taxpayers Have Independent Statutory Right To File A Reply To Show Cause Notice And Draft Assessment Order: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ketan Ribbons Pvt Ltd Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 498

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Preetam Singh Arora, while directing the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to pass the fresh assessment order, held that the taxpayers have an independent statutory right to file a reply to the show cause notice and draft assessment order.

Bombay High Court

Assessee Deprived Of Refund Due To Wrongful Withholding Of Amount By Income Tax Dept.: Bombay High Court Imposes 6% Interest

Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar Versus UOI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 170

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice S.G. Mehare and Justice R.D. Dhanuka has allowed 6% interest to the assessee on wrongful withholding of the amount by the income tax department.

Bombay High Court Directs Assessee To Pay Rs.25,000 to Assessing Officer As The Stay Order Was Not Proactively Communicated

Case Title: Armstrong Pure Water Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India and others

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice N.R.Borkar and Justice K.R.Shriram held that the petitioner should have been proactive and promptly communicated the stay granted by the Court to the Assessing Officer so that he would have had enough time to make enquiries with his advocate and also check on the website about orders passed.

Credit Worthiness Of The Creditor And Genuineness Of Transaction Explained By The Assessee: Bombay High Court Quashes Re-assessment Notice

Case Title: Vapi Infrastructure and Industrial Township LLP Versus Income Tax Officer Ward

The Bombay High Court has quashed the reassessment notice. The assessee explained the credit worthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction.

The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice N.R. Borkar observed that the re-opening proposed was purely based on a change of opinion. The assessing officer was also satisfied with the credit worthiness and details provided by third party lenders.

Assessment Can't Be Reopened On Mere Change Of Opinion Of AO: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Bhavani Gems Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

The Bombay High Court, while quashing the reassessment notice, held that the assessment could not be reopened on a mere change of opinion of the Assessing Officer (AO).

The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice N.R. Borkar observed that the reopening of assessment was merely on the basis of a change of opinion of the Assessing Officer from that held earlier during the course of assessment proceedings and this change of opinion does not constitute justification and/or reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.

Loss On Trading In Derivatives Of Securities Not A Speculative Loss, Can Be Set Off Against Business Income: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Souvenir Developers (I) Pvt. Ltd. versus Union of India

The Bombay High Court has ruled that transactions in respect of trading in derivatives carried out in a recognized stock exchange are excluded from the definition of "speculation transaction" under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Bench, consisting of Justices R.D. Dhanuka and S.G. Mehare, held that an assessee is thus entitled to claim set off of the loss suffered by it in the said transactions in derivatives against its business income. The Court added that the explanatory notes on the provisions of the Finance Act, 2005, clearly indicate that an eligible transaction in respect of trading in derivatives of securities, carried out on a recognized stock exchange, shall not be deemed as a speculative transaction.

Disallowance Can't Be Made On Failure Of Assessee To Deduct TDS If Employee's Commission Shown As Part Of Salary Income: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Indofil Industries Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 66

The Bombay High Court has held that disallowance cannot be made on failure of assessee to deduct TDS if employee's commission is shown as a part of salary income.

The division bench of Justice Amit B.Borkar and Justice K.R.Shriram has ruled that section 192 of the said Act, unlike other TDS provisions, requires deduction of tax at source under the head "Salary only at the time of payment and not otherwise".

Holding Company Not Liable To Deduct TDS On The Share Purchase Transaction By Its Subsidiary: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ingram Micro INC. VERUS The Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 80

The Bombay High Court has held that even if a holding company was considered as an ultimate beneficiary of a share purchase transaction undertaken by its subsidiary company, it would still not be liable to deduct tax at source under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 if it did not make any payment to a non-resident under the transaction.

Reply Of The Taxpayer Not Considered: Bombay High Court Quashes Income Tax Faceless Assessment

Case Title: Pankaj s/o Roshan Dhawan Versus National e-Assessment Centre

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 81

The Bombay High Court bench, consisting of Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Pushpa V. Ganediwala, has quashed the income tax faceless assessment as the reply of the taxpayer was not considered by the department/respondent.

Reassessment Notice Issued Within 5 Hours Of Receiving Information, Bombay High Court Says Nothing Wrong, If There Is Application Of Mind

Case Title: Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal Vs ITO

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 84

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Amit B. Borkar has upheld the validity of the reassessment notice issued within 5 hours of receiving information against Maharashtra Minister, Chhagan Chandrakant.

Remuneration From Partnership Not 'Gross Receipt' For Purpose Of Audit Under Section 44AB Of Income Tax Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Perizad Zorabian Irani Versus PCIT And Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 98

The Bombay High Court has ruled that remuneration received from partnership firms cannot be treated as gross receipt in profession for the purpose of compulsory audit under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Reopening Of Income Tax Assessment Can't Be Allowed On Grounds Of Future Contingencies: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Pavan Morarka Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – 2(3), Mumbai

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 58

The Bombay High Court has held that the reopening of Income Tax Assessment cannot be allowed on grounds of future contingencies.

The division bench of Justice N.J.Jamadar and Justice K.R.Shriram has noted that the entire exercise of reassessment is only contingent on a future event and a consequence that may endure upon the decision of the Tribunal, that again if the Tribunal were to hold against the Revenue. A reopening of an assessment under Section 148 cannot be justified on such a basis. There has to be a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. 'Has escaped assessment' indicates an event which has taken place.

Payments Towards Charter Hire Of Tugs, Barges Made To Non-Resident Assessee Assessable U/S 44BB: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Larsen & Toubro Limited Versus Girish Dave, Director of Income-tax (International Taxation)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 60

The Bombay High Court has held that the payments made towards charter hire of tugs and barges made to non-resident assessee in execution of contract with Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd (ONGC) are accessible under Section 44BB of Income Tax Actand are entitled to special dispensation.

The division bench of Justice N.J.Jamadar and Justice K.R.Shriram has held that the payments made by the ONGC and received by the non-resident assessees or foreign companies under the contracts were more properly assessable under the provisions of Section 44BB and not under Section 44D of the Act.

Relief To HDFC Bank: Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice As Jurisdictional Condition Not Satisfied

Case Title: HDFC Bank Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax-2(3)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 61

In a major relief to the HDFC Bank, the Bombay High Court has quashed the reassessment notice as the jurisdictional condition for invoking the power under section 147 of the Income Tax Act was not satisfied.

The division bench of Justice N.J.Jamadar and Justice K.R.Shriram has observed that once, it is held that the jurisdictional condition for invoking the power under section 147 is not satisfied for a particular assessment year, the notice for reopening cannot be sustained. Then, it does not matter that the assessee did not assailed the notice for reopening in respect of preceding or succeeding years.

'Reasons To Believe' Ought To Spell Out All Reasons, Grounds For Reopening Income Tax Assessment: Bombay High Court Comes Down Heavily On Income Tax Dept

Case Title: Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(3)(1) and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 62

The Bombay High Court has come down heavily on the Income Tax Department for not being transparent with tax payers in sharing the requested information basis of reopening action.

The division bench of Justice N.J.Jamadar and Justice K.R.Shriram relied on the judgement of the Delhi High Court in case of Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Assistant Commission of Income Tax wherein the guidelines has been laid down on reopening cases for assessing officers (AO) for strict compliance.

Change Of Assessing Officer's Opinion Not Ground To Reopen Assessment U/S 147 Income Tax Act, Tangible Material Required: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Vodafone Idea Ltd v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 17

In a case under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Bombay High Court has observed that where on consideration of material on record, one view is conclusively taken by the Assessing Officer, it would not be open to reopen the assessment based on mere change of opinion.

"Condition Of Income Having Escaped Assesment Not Satisfied"- Bombay High Court Quashes IT Notice Against Tata Son Ltd For 2003-04

Case Title: Tata Sons Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 38

The Bombay High Court quashed a notice issued by Income Tax authorities for the financial year 2003-2004 against Tata Sons Ltd – holding company of Tata Group's Companies.

A division bench Justices KR Shriram and NJ Jamadar observed that the notice did not justify the reasons to show that income had escaped assessment on account of failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment, and, that reasons cited by the Assessing Officer merely showed "change of opinion" on the very same material.

Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice Against Tata Communications Transformation Services

Case Title: Tata Communications Transformation Services Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax | Writ Petition No. 1334 Of 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 114

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar and Justice K.R. Shriram has quashed the reassessment notice against the Tata Communications Transformation Services.

Why Officer Delaying Income Tax Refund Should Not Be Directed To Pay Interest From His Pocket: Bombay High Court Asks Income Tax Dept. To Explain

Case Title: Tata Projects Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice N.R. Borkar and Justice K.R. Shriram has asked the department to explain why an officer delaying an income tax refund should not be directed to pay interest from his pocket.

Only PCIT Can Sanction Reassessment Notice After Expiry Of 4 Years, Not ACIT: Bombay High Court

Case Title: J M Financial and Investment Consultancy Services Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice N.R. Borkar and Justice K.R. Shriram has held that after four years of expiry from the end of the relevant assessment year, only the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner (PCIT) can accord the approval to the reassessment notice and not the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT).

Gujarat High Court

No Show Cause Notice Issued Along With Draft Assessment Order: Gujarat High Court Quashes Section 144B Order

Case Title: Symphony Limited Vs ACIT

The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has held that the issuance of a show cause notice along with the draft assessment order is absolutely necessary before passing an order under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act.

Income Tax Not Applicable On Interest Awarded By The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (TDS)

The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has held that the interest awarded by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT) under section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is not taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Rajasthan High Court

Constitutionality Of First Proviso To Section 148 Of Income Tax Act, Rajasthan High Court Issues Notice To Govt.

Case Title: Maya Rathi Versus ITO

The Rajasthan High Court bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain has issued the notice to the government on a plea challenging the validity of the first proviso to section 148 of the Income Tax Act by granting arbitrary powers to the AO.

'Hopeful' That Administration Will Take Requisite Steps: Rajasthan High Court Disposes Plea Seeking Removal Of Glitches On Income Tax Portal

Case Title: Tax Bar Association and Anr v. Union Of India and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 27

The Rajasthan High Court has expressed its disinclination to entertain a public interest litigation seeking direction to the Income Tax Department to remove all the defects and glitches on its official portal.

Allahabad High Court

Reassessment Order Not Valid If Notice By Assessing Authority Is Without Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Uphill Farms Private Limited Versus UOI

The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerji has ruled that once the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the assessing authority was declared without jurisdiction, the subsequent proceedings, including the re-assessment order, cannot be sustained.

High-Pitched, Unreasonable Reassessment Orders, Allahabad High Court Directs The Authorities To Take Action

Case Title: Harish Chandra Bhati Versus Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Noida

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 268

The Allahabad High Court has directed the centre and the tax department to take action against officials for issuing high-pitched and unreasonable reassessment orders.

The division bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerji has observed that the centre should ensure to establish a monitoring cell at the level of government or CBDT within a month if it has not been established so far. The cell will ensure regular monitoring of the Local Committees, as well as follow-up actions and reviews by the Principal Chief Commissioners of Income Tax and Zonal Members, as well as an analysis of the quarterly reports.

Calcutta High Court

No Cess Applicable On Coal Used As An Input For Manufacturing Finished Goods Used For Domestic Supply: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Electrosteel Castings Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 240

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that cess is not applicable on the coal used as an input for manufacturing finished goods for the domestic supply.

The single bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin has observed that goods which are subject to a nil rate of cess would be construed as exempt supplies for purposes of the formula prescribed in Rule 89 (4) of the CGST Rules. Therefore, it deserves to be excluded from the calculation of adjusted total turnover.

Nowhere It Appears That Petitioners' Request For A Personal Hearing Was Considered Or Rejected: Calcutta High Court sets aside GST adjudication order

Case Title: Raj Kumar Singh & Anr. versus Assistant Commissioner

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin has held that the GST order passed without giving an opportunity of personal hearing is against the principles of natural justice.

Reassessment Order Passed Without Issuance of Section 148 Notice Is Not Valid: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Govardhan Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 176

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin has ruled that the reassessment order passed without issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is not valid.

Technical Issues In Income Tax Portal: Calcutta High Court Gives Fresh Opportunity To Assessee

Case Title: Bhadrish Jayantilal Sheth Versus Income Tax Officer

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 191

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin has directed the assessing officer to do a new assessment proceedings as taxpayers could not furnish answers to the notice due to the technical glitches in the income tax portal.

Personal Hearing By Way Of Exchange Of Chat Messages Not An Effective Opportunity Of Personal Hearing: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: SREI Equipment Finance Limited versus Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 206

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that personal hearing conducted by way of exchange of chat messages cannot be said to be an effective opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee and that it does not satisfy the test of fairness or the principles of fair play.

Calcutta High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Issued Post March 31, 2021 U/S 148 Of Income Tax Act, 1961

Case Title: Bagaria Properties and Investment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. Union of India

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 6.

The Calcutta High Court on Monday allowed a batch of writ petitions seeking quashing of impugned re-assessment notices issued post March 31, 2021 by the concerned Income Tax Authority under Section 148of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Justice Md. Nizamuddin was adjudicating upon a batch of petitions challenging the impugned notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the same are barred by limitation and that the concerned Income Tax Authority had not complied with statutory formalities under Section 148 A of the Income Tax Act as prescribed by the Finance Act, 2021 which are applicable with effect from April 1, 2021 before issuance of such notices.

​​Imparting Education By Section 25 Company Is A Charitable Activity Under Income Tax Act: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Creative Museum Designers Versus Income Tax Officer, Exemptions, Ward-1(1), Kolkata

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 70

A Bench of Calcutta High Court, consisting of Justices T.S. Sivagnanam and Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, has ruled that when a Company has been established as a non-profit organization under the Companies Act, and its profits are applied solely for the promotion of its objects, its activities would by necessary implication fall under the definition of a "charitable purpose" under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Income Tax Commissioner In Discretionary Power Of Revision Can't Act As Appellate Authority: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Unisource Hydro Carbon Services Private Limited Versus Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 72

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the power of an Appellate Authority is much wider than that of a Revisional Authority and the Commissioner, in the exercise of his discretionary power of revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, cannot act as an Appellate Authority and go into the merits of the assessment by re-appreciating the facts and evidence.

Assessee Should Be Given Opportunity To Produce Evidence Which Has Impact On Tax Liability : Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Nipika Agarwal Proprietress of S.N. Trading Versus Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

The Calcutta High Court bench has held that assessees should be given the opportunity to produce evidence which has an impact on tax liability.

The division bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Bibhas Ranjan De has observed that tax authorities must adjudicate upon the tax liability in accordance with the law. Similarly, if the assessee is unable to present certain evidence that affects the tax liability, the assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity to bring the evidence to the attention of the tax authorities.

Telangana High Court

CIT(A) Is A Quasi Judicial Authority, Not Bound By Administrative Circulars Issued By CBDT: Telangana High Court

Case Title: APR Jewellers Private Limited Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax

The Telangana High Court held that the CIT (A) is a quasi judicial authority and is not bound by the administrative circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT).

The division bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Surepalli Nanda has remanded the matter back to the CIT (A) for a fresh decision on the prayer for stay of the petitioner in accordance with law after complying with the principles of natural justice.

Scrutiny By Income Tax Department Barred For The Period Covered By The Resolution Plan: Telangana High Court

Case Title: Sirpur Paper Mills Limited & Another. V. Union of India & Two Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 5

The High Court of Telangana in a Bench consisting of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Chillakur Sumalatha in Sirpur Paper Mills Limited & Another. V. Union of India & Two Others held that for the period covered by the Resolution Plan, Income Tax Department cannot carry out any scrutiny or assessment in respect of the Corporate Debtor regarding carry forward of losses and set off against future profits under Income Tax Act, 1961.

Madras High Court

Initiation Of Malicious Prosecution By Income Tax Dept. Abusing Power: Madras High Court

Case Title: Mrs. Noorjahan Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 198

The Madras High Court bench of Justice G. Jayachandran has held that the suppression of material facts, the intentional suggestion of falsehood and the non-application of mind go to show that there was a malicious prosecution initiated by the Income Tax department by abusing its power. The petitioners need not be forced to undergo the ordeal of a trial, which has no legs to stand on.

Prosecution By Revenue Department Malicious And Patently Malafide, Madras High Court Quashes Complaint

Case Title: Mrs. Noorjahan versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax And M/s. AMK Solutions Private Ltd. & Ors. versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The Madras High Court has quashed the complaints filed by the income tax department against the assessee for wilfully attempting to evade payment of tax under Section 276 C (2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground of malicious prosecution, non-application of mind and abuse of power.

TPO To Mandatorily Pass Order Determining Arm's Length Pricing Within 60 Days: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Saint Gobain India Private Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 162

The Madras High Court bench of Justice R.Mahadevan and Justice J.Sathya Narayan Prasad has held that the transfer pricing officer (TPO) must mandatorily pass the order determining arm's length pricing within 60 days.

Taxation Relaxation Act Doesn't Sanction Applying Repealed Provisions : Madras HC Sets Aside Reassessment Notices U/S 148 Of Old Income Tax Act

Case Title: Vellore Institute of Technology, Represented by its Chairman and Managing Trustees v. The Central Board Of Direct Taxes & Anr. and Others.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 62

The Madras High Court has recently set aside a number of reassessment notices issued under the 1961 Income Tax Act by iterating that the Taxation Relaxation Act, 2020 only extends the period of limitation and not the application of repealed provisions in light of the amended provisions effective from 1st April, 2021.

No Wilful Evasion Of Tax - Madras High Court Quashes Prosecution Under Section 276C (2) Of Income Tax Act

Case Title: S.P. Velayutham Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 124

The Madras High Court has ruled that prosecution under Section 276C (2) of the Income Tax Act for wilfully attempting to evade payment of tax cannot be initiated against an assessee who merely defaults to pay tax on time under the Act.

The Single Bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar held that in the absence of mens rea to avoid payment of tax, a "wilful attempt" to evade tax cannot be attributed to assessee in order to prosecute him under Section 276C (2).

Madras High Court Remands Matter To AO To Determine Whether IL&FS Is Public Financial Institution

Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s.Tamil Nadu Water Investment Co.Ltd

The Madras High Court has remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for determination to determine whether M/s. Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Limited (IL&FS) is a Public Financial Institution.

The division bench of Justice R.Mahadevan and Justice J.Satyanarayana Prasad set aside the order of the ITAT and remanded to the AO to examine, whether IL&FS is a public financial institution; and if it is in affirmative, then, section 43B(d) read with explanation 3C will be applicable; and pass orders afresh, after providing due opportunity of hearing to all the parties, within a period of eight weeks.

Order Of ITAT Is Based On Evidence, Findings Based On Facts, Madras High Court Dismisses Tax Appeal

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a tax appeal observing that there were no substantial question of law arisen for consideration.

The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad were of the opinion that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which was confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was based on the evidence adduced before the same. "Such well-considered findings of the appellate authorities do not warrant any interference at the hands of this court", it observed.

Royalty Income Should Be Excluded From Business Profits For Calculating Deductions U/S 80HHC Of Income Tax Act: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s. Fenner (India) Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 251

The Madras High Court recently upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal directing the assessing officer to exclude the royalty income from the business profits for the purpose of calculation of deductions under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act.

Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad observed that the appellant could not produce concrete evidence to assert that the royalty income received from a subsidiary company was related to export business. Thus, the decision of the tribunal did not warrant any interference.

Period Of Limitation Under S.153 Of Income Tax Act Applies To Remand Proceedings : Madras HC

Case Title: The Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr v. M/s. Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 252

The Madras High Court recently observed that the period of limitation under the Sections 153 (2A) or 153 (3) was applicable even for remad proceedings before the Assessing Officer, Transfer Pricing Officer or the Dispute Resolution Panel. The entire proceedings had to be conducted within a period of 9 months as contemplated under Section 144C (12) of the Income Tax Act.

The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad further observed that in matters of transfer pricing, when the matter was remanded to the DRP, the Assessing Officer had to pass a denova draft and complete the entire proceedings within 12 months as otherwise the very purpose of extension would become meaningless.

Deliberately Concealing The Income, Assessee Can Be Prosecuted : Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has ruled that an assessee can be prosecuted for willfully and deliberately concealing his income by not filing his income tax return within the stipulated time, even after the return belatedly submitted by the assessee is accepted by the revenue authorities on the basis of which an assessment order is passed.

The Single Bench of Justice G. Chandrasekharan observed that the concealment and suppression of income by the assessee came to light only after a survey operation was conducted and that the assessee had filed his return only after a statutory notice was issued to him under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Court held that the assessee had willfully and deliberately concealed his true income by not filing his income tax return within the stipulated time.

Kerala High Court

TDS Collection U/S 194N Income Tax Act Sub Judice: Kerala High Court Stays Demand Notice Issued To State Co-operative Bank

Case Title: Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.

The Kerala High Court stayed the demand notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax asking the State Co-operative Bank to pay the outstanding amount for the financial year 2019-20 in a plea moved by the said Bank.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas issued the interim order considering that the matter relating to the collection of Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) on interests by the Co-operative Banks is sub-judice before the Court.

No Opportunity Of Hearing Given To Managing Director Imprisoned In UAE: Kerala High Court Quashes Income Tax Assessment Orders

Case Title: Atlas Jewellery [P] Ltd Versus Deputy Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 113

The Kerala High Court has quashed the income tax assessment order on the grounds that no opportunity of hearing was given to the Managing Director who was imprisoned in UAE.

The single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has ruled that the principle of natural justice has twin ingredients, firstly opportunity to show cause and of being heard should be given, it must be a real opportunity and not an unreal one, the right to a fair hearing is essential and secondly, the orders passed by the authorities should give reasons for arriving at any conclusion showing a proper application of mind.

Failure Of The Dealer To Attend Assessment Proceedings, No Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Karvy Innotech Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner (ASSMT) SGST Department

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 121

The Kerala High Court has held that failure of a dealer to attend assessment proceedings cannot be regarded as the violation of principles of natural justice.

Assessee's Recourse To Constitutional Provisions Not A 'Proceeding Under Income Tax Act' : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Udaya Sounds v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 142

The Kerala High Court on Thursday ruled that a Special Leave Petition filed by an assessee under Article 136 of the Constitution of India cannot be regarded as a proceeding under the Income Tax Act.

Non Release Of Seized Documents, Based On Pendency Of The SLP In The Supreme Court By IT Department, Is Illegal: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Udaya Sounds versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 155

The Kerala High Court has ruled that the income tax department is not authorized to retain the title deeds seized by them under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that a Special Leave Petition filed by the Assessee against the assessment order is pending before the Supreme Court.

Non Release Of Seized Documents, Based On Pendency Of The SLP In The Supreme Court By IT Department, Is Illegal: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Udaya Sounds versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 155

The Kerala High Court has ruled that the income tax department is not authorized to retain the title deeds seized by them under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that a Special Leave Petition filed by the Assessee against the assessment order is pending before the Supreme Court.

Karnataka High Court

AO Can't Take Advantage Of Assessee's Ignorance To Collect More Tax: Karnataka High Court Condones Delay Of 6 Years In Filing Revised ITR

Case Title: Devendra Pai Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 63

A bench of Karnataka High Court consisting of Justice Sunil S.Yadav has condoned the delay of 6 years in filing revised Income Tax Return (ITR).

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Income Disclosed Under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme Cannot Be Included With Regular Income; Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Subhash Chandra Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax, Indore And Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 84

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that income disclosed under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme cannot be included with the regular income declared under Income Tax Act as the tax paid under the Scheme cannot be refunded at any cost.

The Bench, consisting of Justices Vivek Rusia and Amar Nath Kesharwani, has held that tax paid under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme and tax paid under Income Tax Act are different and there cannot be any adjustment between them. The Bench added that an assessee cannot be permitted to disclose part of his income under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme and other part of his income in an income tax return filed belatedly under the Act.

MP High Court Grants Custody Of Looted Property Recovered By Police To Income Tax Department As The Same Was Not Disclosed By Complainant

Case Title: Jahar Singh Gurjar Vs. The State of M.P. & Another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 75

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench recently dismissed an application moved by a Complainant in a dacoity case, seeking custody of the recovered stolen cash to the tune of Rs. 45 Lakhs.

Orissa High Court

Commission Paid To Persons Who Are Not Beneficial To Business Of Assessee Is Taxable : Orissa High Court

Case Title: M/s. Oripol Industries Ltd., Balasore v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Balasore and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 69

The Orissa High Court has dismissed a challenge against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack (ITAT) which disallowed commission expenses as claimed by the appellant. It held that the appellant was not able to prove the expertise of persons to help him in business to whom the said commission was paid.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik observed, "Nevertheless, claiming that each of the seven persons to whom commission was paid actually had the expertise to help the Appellant procuring the IOF from different sources appears to be stretching things a bit too far."

S. 194-I Income Tax Act | TDS Can't Be Deducted In Absence Of Payment Of Rent: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar v. Western Electricity Supply Company of Odisha Limited (WESCO) & Other Connected Matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 33

The Orissa High Court has held that in absence of payment of rent, the obligation to deduct tax at source ('TDS') under Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') does not arise at all. Notably, the said provision deals with 'TDS on rent'.

Chhattisgarh High Court

Income Tax Reassessment Notice Issued After 4 Years Without Valid Reasons: Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes Notice

Case Title: Hariom Ingots and Power Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax | WPT No. 56 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 25

The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu has quashed the income tax reassessment notice, which was issued after 4 years without stating any valid reason.

Issuance Reassessment Notice Valid On Ground Disclosure Of Bogus Purchase Bills: Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title: Jugal Kishore Paliwal Versus Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu has held that the reassessment notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is valid on the grounds of disclosure of bogus purchase bills.

Meghalaya High Court

​​Income Tax Act | No Order Can Be Passed U/S 148A(d) Without Taking Into Consideration Reply Filed By Assessee To Notice U/S 148A(b): Meghalaya HC

Case Title: Jasmine Bonny Agitok Sangma v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 16

A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh of Meghalaya High Courthas held that no order can be passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without taking into consideration reply filed by an assessee to the initial notice issued under Section 148A(b).

Uttarakhand High Court

Income Of Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority Not The Income Of The State Government, Not Exempt Under Article 289(1): Uttarakhand High Court

Case Title: Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority versus Additional Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Utt) 20

The Uttarakhand High Court has reiterated that even if a Development Authority constituted under an Act of the State Legislature does not carry on any trade or business within the meaning of Article 289(2) of the Constitution of India, it continues to have a distinct legal personality separate from the State and, therefore, its income cannot be considered to be the income of the State so as to be exempt from Union taxation under Article 289(1).

Himachal Pradesh High Court

AO Failed To Consider Genuine Purchases And Sales Entered In The Books Of Account: Himachal Pradesh High Court Deletes Addition

Case Title: PCIT Vs Smart Value Products And Services Ltd.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Sabina and Justice Satyen Vaidya has deleted the addition on the grounds that the Assessing Officer (AO) has failed to consider genuine purchases and sales entered in the books of account.

Rajasthan High Court

Definition Of 'Resident' Under Income Tax Act Designed For Including Persons In Tax Net, Not For Determining Citizenship: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Smt Kamla v. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 189

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the condition imposed by the Income Tax Act that a person residing in India for a continuous period of 180 days would be considered to be a resident of India, is for the purpose of bringing such person within the purview of the Income Tax Act.

ITAT

​​AO's Jurisdiction Doesn't Change On Mere Surrendering Section 12A Registration: ITAT Upholds Income Tax Reassessment Order Against Young Indian

Case Title: Young Indian Vs. ACIT(E)

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) consisting of Amit Shukla (Judicial Member) and Anil Chaturvedi (Accountant Member) has upheld the income tax reassessment order against Young Indian on the grounds that the jurisdiction of AO does not change on mere surrendering registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act.

Limitation For Revisionary Jurisdiction Runs From The Date Of Assessment Order And Not Reassessment, If Subject Matter Was Not Covered In Reassessment: ITAT Kolkata

Case Title: Alkem Laboratories Limited versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

The Kolkata Bench of ITAT, consisting of members Rajpal Yadav (Vice President) and Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), has ruled that the period of limitation for exercising revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 runs from the date of assessment order and not the reassessment order, if the revisionary jurisdiction is sought to be exercised with respect to an issue which was not the subject matter of reassessment proceedings.

No Liability To Deduct TDS On Payments Made By Lenskart To Facebook Ireland: ITAT Delhi

Case Title: Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi versus M/s Lenskart Solution (P) Ltd.

The Delhi Bench of ITAT, consisting of members N. K. Choudhry (Judicial Member) and Anil Chaturvedi (Accountant Member), has upheld the order passed by the CIT (A) deleting additions of over Rupees 67 Lakhs made to Lenskart's taxable income for non-deduction of TDS on marketing expenses paid by it to Facebook Ireland Inc.

Non-Disclosure Of A Foreign Asset In ITR Is Not A Valid Reason For Imposition Of Penalty If source Of Investment Is Well Explained: Mumbai ITAT

Case Title: Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Central Range 1, Mumbai Versus Leena Gandhi Tiwari

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) headed by Pramod Kumar (Vice President) and Rahul Chaudhary (J​​udicial Member) has ruled that mere non-disclosure of a foreign asset in the income tax return, by itself, is not a valid reason for a penalty under the Black Money Act, if the source of investment is well explained by the assessee.

Source Of Demonetized Notes Collected By Co-Operative Society Explained, ITAT Quashes Addition Made Under Section 68 Of Income Tax Act

Case Title: Sri Bhageeratha Pattina Sahakara versus ITO, Davanagere

The Bangalore Bench of ITAT has ruled that there is no rationale in the action of the Assessing Officer of making additions to assessee's income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the assessee has violated RBI notifications.

Assessment Order Without Reasons, Not Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue: ITAT Quashes Revenue's Revision Order

Case Title: Reliance Payment Solutions Limited versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

The Mumbai Bench of ITAT has ruled that action of the Assessing Officer in accepting the explanation submitted by the Assessee in the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings cannot be faulted merely because the Assessing Officer did not write specific reasons for accepting the explanation.

Additions By AO On The Basis Of Suo-Moto Disclosure Before The Settlement Commission, Not Permissible If The Settlement Was Aborted: ITAT Mumbai

Case Title: Late Shri Sawarmal Hisaria versus Dy. CIT, Mumbai

The Mumbai Bench of ITAT, consisting of members Kuldip Singh (Judicial Member) and Prashant Maharishi(Accountant Member), has ruled that the Assessing Officer cannot make any addition to assessee's income on the basis of the suo-moto disclosure made by the assessee before the Income Tax Settlement Commission, if the settlement got aborted due to non-fulfilment of conditions by the assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

No TDS Required To Be Deducted On Enhanced Compensation Awarded By Court Under Land Acquisition Act: Delhi ITAT

Case Title: Land Acquisition Office versus DCIT, (TDS) Gurgaon

The Delhi Bench of ITAT, consisting of members Astha Chandra (Judicial Member) and N.K. Billaiya (Accountant Member), has ruled that interest received by land owners on enhanced compensation awarded to them by the Court under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not in the nature of 'income from other sources' under the Income Tax Act, 1961, therefore, no TDS is required to be deducted with respect to it.

Mere Ignorance Of Law With Respect To Compulsory Audit Under Section 44AB Is Not A Reasonable Cause For Deleting Penalty: ITAT Hyderabad

Case Title: Mohd Zaheeruddin versus Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad

The Hyderabad Bench of ITAT, consisting of members S.S. Godara (Judicial Member) and A. Mohan Alankamony (Accountant Member), has ruled that mere ignorance of law with respect to the provisions of Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act for compulsory audit of accounts, cannot be said to be a reasonable cause under Section 273B for deleting the penalty imposed on the Assessee for failure to audit accounts.

Routine Business Support Services Are Not Taxable As Fees For Technical Services: Delhi ITAT

Case Title: Magotteaux International SA, Belgium versus Dy. C.I.T, International Taxation, New Delhi

The Delhi Bench of ITAT, consisting of members Astha Chandra (Judicial Member) and N.K. Billaiya (Accountant Member), has ruled that routine business support services are not taxable as fees for technical services (FTS) since they do not make any technology or skill available to the recipient of the services.

Corpus Donations Received By A Trust For A Specific Purpose Are Not Taxable, Even If The Trust Is Not Registered: ITAT Mumbai

Case Title: Versova Kokni Sunni Jamat Trust versus Centralised Processing Centre Bangalore

The Mumbai Bench of ITAT, consisting of members Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) and Gagan Goyal (Accountant Member), has ruled that the corpus donations received by a Trust for a specific purpose are not taxable, even if the Trust is not registered under Section 12 A of the Income Tax Act, since they are in the nature of a capital receipt.

Subscription Fee Towards Cloud Services Not Taxable As Royalty: Delhi ITAT

Case Title: M/s MOL Corporation versus DCIT (International Taxation)

The Delhi Bench of ITAT, consisting of members Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member) and R.K. Panda (Accountant Member), has ruled that subscription fee received towards Cloud Services is not taxable as royalty.

CBDT Circular Denying Tax Benefit Under MFN Clause Transgresses Income Tax Act, Rules ITAT

Case Title: GRI Renewable Industries S.L. Vs. ACIT (IT), Circle-1, Pune

The ITAT Bench of Pune, consisting of members R.S. Sayal (Vice President) and Partha Sarathi Chaudhury (Judicial Member), has held that the CBDT Circular, issued in February 2022, requiring a separate notification by the Government of India for importing the benefit of the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause into a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), transgressed the boundaries of section 90 (1) of the Income Tax Act,1961. Also, the Bench ruled, since the Circular is in the nature of an additional detrimental stipulation mandated for taking the benefit conferred by DTAA, it can have no retrospective effect.

AOP Running Educational Institution Eligible For Exemption Under Section 10 (23C) (VI) Of The Income Tax Act, Rules ITAT

Case Title: Sharda Mandir High School Versus CIT

The ITAT Bench of Mumbai, consisting of members Kuldip Singh (Judicial Member) and Prashant Maharishi (Accountant Member), ruled that an unregistered Association of Persons (AOP), formed by an agreement merging two charitable Trusts, is eligible for exemption under section 10 (23C) (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Loss On Investment In Subsidiary, Made To Boost Sales, Deductible As Revenue Expenditure, Rules ITAT

Case Title: Refex Industries Limited Versus DCIT

The ITAT Bench of Chennai, consisting of members V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member), allowed the loss on investment made in subsidiary company for increasing business expediency to be written off as business loss. Allowing deduction of legal fee and due diligence expenditure incurred in acquiring a foreign entity, the ITAT ruled that the loss on acquisition made to boost trading results could not be ruled as capital in nature.

Reassessment Proceedings Not Time Barred When Time Limit Increased Retrospectively Under Income Tax Act: ITAT

Case Title: DCIT Mumbai Versus Dilip J Thakkar

The Mumbai Bench of ITAT, comprising of members Pramod Kumar (Vice President) and Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), has held that reassessment proceeding cannot be held time barred when an amendment increasing limitation of time is expressly stated to be retrospective. The court added that it was not open to the ITAT and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to contest the validity of a retrospective amendment in law.

Invalid Re-Assessment By AO Cannot Be Subject Matter Of Revision Under Section 263 Of Income Tax Act: ITAT Mumbai

Case Title: Aishwarya Rai Bachchan Versus The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai

The Bench of ITAT Mumbai, consisting of members Kuldip Singh (Judicial Member) and M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member), held that when an assessment framed by the Assessing Officer is invalid in law, the said invalid order cannot be the subject matter of revision under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act ,1961.

Inspection And Examination Of Goods Before Shipment Not Taxable As Technical And Managerial Services: ITAT Delhi

Case Title: Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. Vs DCIT

The Delhi Bench of ITAT, consisting of members Amit Shukla (Judicial Member) and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar (Accountant Member), ruled that inspection and examination of goods before shipment cannot be treated as technical and managerial services under Section 9 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Performance Guarantee Commission Is Not Business Income Under DTAA: Delhi ITAT

Case Title: Dynamic Drilling & Services Pvt. Ltd Versus ACIT, New Delhi

The Delhi Bench of ITAT, consisting of Amit Shukla (Judicial Member) and B.R.R. Kumar (Accountant Member), has ruled that performance guarantee commission received by an assessee from its foreign Associated Enterprise is not its business income under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

The ITAT therefore allowed foreign tax credit under Income Tax Act, 1961 to the assessee against the tax withheld under the Singapore Income Tax law on the commission paid by a Singapore Entity.

Foreign Tax Credit Cannot Be Denied For Delay In Filing Form 67: Bangalore ITAT

Case Title: M/S. 42 Hertz Software India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore

The Bangalore Bench of ITAT has ruled that Foreign Tax Credit cannot be denied to the assessee for delay in filing Form 67.

The Bench, consisting of members Beena Pillai (Judicial Member) and Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member) has ruled that Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules which requires the assessee to submit Form 67 before filing the income tax return for claiming Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) is directory in nature and not mandatory, thus FTC cannot be denied for delay in filing Form 67.

Employee Contribution To PF/ESI Before ITR Filing Eligible For Income Tax Deduction: ITAT

Case Title: M/s. B. R. S. Precision Manufacturing Private Limited Versus DCIT

The Banglore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that an Employee contribution to Provident Fund (PF)/ Employee State Insurance (ESI) before ITR filing is eligible for income tax deduction.

The single member bench of Vice President, N.V.Vasudevan in the light of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd vs DCIT observed that employee's contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act would also be covered under section 43B and therefore if the share of the employee's share of contribution is made on or before due date for furnishing the return of income under section 139(1), then the assessee would be entitled to claim deduction.

ITAT Delhi: Income Tax Act Does Not Prohibit HRA Exemption On Rent Paid To Wife

Case Title : Abhay Kumar Mittal Versus DCIT

The Delhi Bench of ITAT, consisting of members A. D. Jain (Vice President) and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar (Accountant Member), has ruled that HRA exemption under Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be denied on the ground that the Assessee pays rent to its spouse.

Denying Carry Forward Of Business Loss Based On Non-Completion Of Tax Audit Within Prescribed Time Not Justified: ITAT

Case Title: Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Brahmos Aerospace (Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd.

The Cochin Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that denying the carry forward of business loss based on non-completion of tax audit/ statutory audit within prescribed time is not justified.

ITAT Disallows 'Mixed Used Charges' For Regularising Usage Of Residential Premises For Commercial Purposes Against House Property Income

Case Title: Amar Chand Garg Versus ACIT

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has disallowed the 'Mixed Used Charges' for regularising usage of residential premises for commercial purposes against house property income.

Income Tax Notice, Revisionary Proceedings Against A Dead Person Is Void: ITAT

Case Title: Sheela Devi Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the notice issued against a dead person is null and void and all consequent proceedings or orders being equally tainted are liable to be set aside.

ITAT Mumbai: Sale Of TDRs Does Not Attract Capital Gains Tax

Case Title: Income Tax Officer Versus Kirit Raojibhai Patel

The ITAT Bench of Mumbai, consisting of members Pavan Kumar Gadale (Judicial Member) and Prashant Maharishi (Accountant Member), has ruled that sale of transferable development rights does not attract capital gains tax since the cost of acquisition for the same does not exist.

Consideration For Accessing Database Cannot Be Treated As 'Royalty' Under India-US DTAA: ITAT

Case Title: M/s Dow Jones & Company Inc. Versus A.C.I.T.

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)has ruled that the consideration for accessing Database cannot be treated as 'Royalty' under India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

ITAT Remands Matter To CIT(A) To Determine Taxable Income After Examining Nature Of Credit Entries, Bank Accounts

Case Title: Subhash Chander Khanna Versus Income Tax Officer

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) consisting of Astha Chandra (Judicial Member) and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar (Accountant Member) has remanded the matter back to CIT(A) to determine the issue afresh after examining the bank accounts and determining the taxable income.

Rejection of Additional Evidence without Examination is Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: ITAT

Case Title: Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Singh Versus ITO

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that rejection of additional evidence without examination is a violation of principles of natural justice.

The two-member bench of B.R.R.Kumar (Accountant Member) and Saktijit Dey (Judicial Member) has restored the issue to the file of Commissioner (Appeals) for de-novo adjudication after considering the additional evidences filed by the assessee and the remand report of the Assessing Officer.

ITAT: Unascertained Business Loss Cannot Be Allowed As Deduction

Case Title: Avijit Dewanjee Versus DCIT, Bengaluru

The Bangalore Bench of ITAT, consisting of members Beena Pillai (Judicial Member) and Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), has ruled that unless the recovery of embezzled amount in the course of business was impossible, it could not be claimed as a business loss. The ITAT ruled that an unascertained loss cannot be allowed as deduction from taxable income.

Non Production Of Persons Despite Summons Leads To Inference Of Routing Own Money : ITAT Delhi

Case Titled: Anandtex International P. Ltd Versus Acit, Circle, Panipat

The Delhi Bench of ITAT, consisting of members G.S. Pannu (President) and K. Narsimha Chary (Judicial Member), has ruled that an Assessing Officer has the power to verify transactions beyond the paperwork submitted by the Assessee under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

ITAT Chennai: Internal Family Arrangement Has No Bearing On Computation Of Capital Gains From Joint Property

Case Title: Dr. E.S. Krishnamoorthy Versus The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-I(4), Chennai

The Chennai Bench of ITAT, consisting of members V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and G. Manjunatha (Accountant Member), has held that capital gains under the Income Tax Act, 1961 is to be computed according to the respective share of the parties in a residential property and not according to any internal family arrangement.

Claim Of Deduction Under Section 54 Of Income Tax Act To Be Reckoned From The Date Of Possession Of New Property: Mumbai ITAT

Case Title : Reji Easow Versus Income Tax Officer, Thane

The Mumbai Bench of ITAT, consisting of members Pramod Kumar (Vice President) and Kuldip Singh (Judicial Member), has ruled that an assessee's claim of deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was to be reckoned from the date of possession of the new residential house property. Also, the ITAT ruled that the source of funds for the purchase of the new house property under Section 54 is irrelevant.

Payment To Foreign Company For Utilisation Of Transponder Of A Satellite Is Not "Royalty" As Per DTAA: ITAT

Case Title: The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (Intl. Taxation) Versus M/s Viacom 18 Media Pvt. ltd.

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) consisting of Sandeep Sigh Karhail (Judicial Member) and Prashant Maharishi (Accountant Member) ruled that the payment made to a foreign company for the utilisation of a transponder centred on a satellite was not in the nature of "royalty" in terms of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

Accessing The Premises Of A JV Company For Technical Assistance Can't Be Treated As Permanent Establishment Under DTAA : Delhi ITAT

Case Title: FCC Co. Ltd. Versus ACIT, New Delhi

The Delhi Bench of ITAT, consisting of members N.K. Billaiya (Accountant Member) and Astha Chandra (Judicial Member), has held that access to a foreign enterprise for providing technical assistance to its Joint Venture Company in its premises in India does not amount to a Permanent Establishment under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.

Interest Income Derived By Gujarat Sports Authority On Its Surplus Taxable As "Income From Other Sources": Ahmedabad ITAT

Case Title: Sports Authority Of Gujarat Versus DCIT (Exemption)

The Ahmedabad Bench of ITAT, consisting of members P.M. Jagtap (Vice President) and Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), has ruled that the interest income earned by the Gujarat Sports Authority on its deposits would be taxable as "Income from Other Sources" and not as business income under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT held that since the Sports Authority was not engaged in any business activity, therefore the interest income earned by it on its deposits would not qualify as business income.

Interest On Income Tax Refund Not Connected To Permanent Establishment Under DTAA, Cannot Be Taxed As Business Income: Dehradun ITAT

Case Title: ACIT (INTL. Taxation), Dehradun Versus Baker Hughes Singapore PTE

The Dehradun Bench of ITAT, consisting of members Amit Shukla (Judicial Member) and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar (Accountant Member), has ruled that interest on income tax refund received by a foreign enterprise is not effectively connected to its Permanent Establishment in India and therefore it cannot be taxed as its business income under Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT also held that receipts from Service Tax and VAT could not be included in the gross taxable receipts of an assessee under the Act.

AO's claim That The Assessee Is Only Into Job Work And Not Manufacturing Rejected, Deduction Allowed By ITAT Delhi

Case Title: DCIT Versus Himalayan Auto Era (India) Pvt. Ltd.

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) while allowing the deduction under Income Tax Act has rejected the claim of AO that the assessee is only into job work and not manufacturing.

LTCG On Penny Stock Transaction Cannot Be Denied Exemption In Absence Of Incriminating Material: ITAT Mumbai

Case Title: Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai Versus Vipul Suresh Kumar Modi

The Mumbai Bench of ITAT, consisting of members Rahul Chaudhary (Judicial Member) and Shamim Yahya (Accountant Member), has ruled that long term capital gains arising from a penny stock transaction cannot be denied exemption under the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the said transaction is bogus and pre-arranged in the absence of any incriminating material.

Flight Testing Services Provided To Hindustan Aeronautics Not Taxable As Fees For Technical Services: Bangalore ITAT

Case Title: M/S Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Versus ACIT, Bengaluru

The ITAT Bangalore Bench, consisting of members George George K (Judicial Member) and Padmavathy S (Accountant Member), has ruled that flight testing services provided to Hindustan Aeronautics Limited cannot be taxed as fees for technical services and therefore no TDS is required to be collected on it.

Belated Deposit Of PF And ESI Contribution Of Employees Cannot Be Added To Employer's Taxable Income: ITAT Delhi

Case Title: Guardian India Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

The Single Bench of Delhi ITAT, consisting of judicial member Kul Bharat, has ruled that belated payment of employees' contribution to the Provident Fund and State Insurance Scheme cannot be added to the employer's taxable income as deemed income, if the said deposits are made before the due date of filing the income tax return under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Non-Appearance Of Assessee In Response To Notice Issued Electronically Under Section 142(1) Of Income Tax Act A Bonafide Mistake: ITAT Mumbai

Case Title : Triumph International Finance India Limited Versus DCIT, Mumbai

The Mumbai Bench of ITAT, consisting of members G.S. Pannu (President) and Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member), has ruled that non-compliance by the assessee of a notice issued electronically under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the first year of transition towards an online and digital interface by the revenue department, is not deliberate and is a bonafide mistake.

Income Tax Deduction Available On Distribution Of Gifts For Sales Promotion Even If Assessee Refuses To Share List Of Recipients: ITAT

Case Title: ACIT Versus Armee Infotech

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) headed by Rajpal Yadav (Vice President) and Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member) has held that the assessee was eligible for an income tax deduction on the distribution of gifts for sales promotion even if the assessee refused to share the list of recipients.

Non-Deduction of TDS At The Year End As The Amount Payable Was Not Identifiable: Penalty not justifiable- ITAT

Case Title: Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s Parsons Brinckershoff India Pvt. Ltd.

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), consisting of Kul Bharat (Judicial Member) and R.K. Panda (Accountant Member), upheld the CIT(A) order, holding that the mere fact that taxes were not deducted on the year end provision but were deducted and deposited upon crystallisation of liability to pay the expenses does not automatically justify the imposition of a penalty under section 271C of the Income Tax Act.

State Authorities, Regulatory Bodies Including Direct & Indirect Tax Departments Cannot Question Resolution Plan: ITAT Dismisses Revenue Department's Appeal

Case Title: Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Global Softech Ltd.

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue department on the grounds that the state authorities and regulatory bodies, including direct and indirect tax departments, cannot question the resolution plan.

Additions Cannot Be Made To Assessee's Income On Basis Of Document Declared By The CESTAT As 'Dumb Document': Ahmedabad ITAT

Case Title: Rajesh Sajjanraj Bafna versus D.C.I.T.

The Ahmedabad Bench of ITAT has ruled that additions cannot be made to assessee's taxable income under the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of documents that are declared as 'dumb documents' by the CESTAT in the service tax proceedings before it.

Assessing Officer Cannot Apply Wrong Method In Absence Of Audited Financials Of AE: Delhi ITAT

Case Title: M/s Olympus Medical Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) consisting of Yogesh Kumar (Judicial Member) and Dr. B.R.R. Kumar (Accountant Member) has held that the AO cannot give benefit to the assessee for non-cooperation in providing audited financials of associated enterprises (AE).

Capital Gain Exemption Can't Be Denied To Wife For Mere Presence of Husband's Name In Purchase Document: ITAT

Case Title: Y. Manjula Reddy Vs. ITO

The Banglore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) headed by N.V. Vasudevan (Vice-President) and B.R. Baskaran (Accountant Member) has ruled that the capital gain exemption cannot be denied to the wife for the mere presence of the husband's name in the purchase document.

Subscription Money Received In Advance By DTH Operators Is Taxable Only When Services Are Provided To The Subscribers: Chennai ITAT

Case Title: ACIT versus M/s Sun Direct TV Pvt Ltd

The Chennai Bench of ITAT has ruled that subscription money received in advance by the DTH operators is not taxable. The Bench, consisting of members V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member), held that the subscription money received by DTH operators is taxable only when the said amount is accrued to them, i.e., when the services are rendered by the DTH operators to the subscribers.

Consideration Paid For Purchase Of Advertisement Space Does Not Amount To 'Royalty' Under Income Tax Act: ITAT Chennai

Case Title: M/s. ESPN Digital Media (India) Pvt Ltd versus DCIT

The Chennai Bench of ITAT has ruled that consideration paid for purchase of advertisement space does not amount to 'royalty' under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Bench, consisting of members Mahavir Singh (Vice President) and Dr. M. L. Meena (Accountant Member), held that the Finance Act, 2016 recognizes providing advertising space as a 'specified service', which is subject to Equalisation Levy. The ITAT added that the contention that sale of advertising space was 'royalty' under the Income Tax Act would be contrary to the legislative intent, objects and purpose of the provisions of Equalisation Levy, as well as result in absurdity and double taxation.

No Further Verification Required If Cash Deposit Is Up To Rs 2.5 Lakhs During The Demonetization: ITAT Delhi

Case Title: Aniket Agarwal versus Income Tax Officer

The Delhi Bench of ITAT, consisting of judicial member Chandra Mohan Garg, has held that no further verification is required in the case of an individual earning income from salary, who has deposited an amount of up to Rs 2,50,000 during the demonetization period.

Husband Entitled Capital Gain Exemption For Asset Bought In The Name Of The Wife: ITAT

Case Title: Kaushlendra Singh Versus ITO

The Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) consisting of Dr. S. Seethalashmi (Judicial Member) and Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai (Accountant Member) held that the husband was entitled to a capital gain exemption for assets bought in the name of the wife.

Husband Entitled Capital Gain Exemption For Asset Bought In The Name Of The Wife: ITAT

Case Title: Kaushlendra Singh Versus ITO

The Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) consisting of Dr. S. Seethalashmi (Judicial Member) and Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai (Accountant Member) held that the husband was entitled to a capital gain exemption for assets bought in the name of the wife.

Delay In Filing Appeal Based On COVID-19 Reasons: ITAT Imposes Penalty Of Rs.25,000

Case Title: M/s. Kal Airways Private Limited Versus DCIT

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) headed by Mahavir Singh (Vice President) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) has imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the assessee for the delay of 1217 days in filing the appeal due to COVID-19.

Failure Of Assessee To Reply To Income Tax Notice Due To COVID: ITAT Directs Fresh Adjudication

Case Title: M/s. Madanthyar Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society Versus DCIT

The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the assessee could not respond to the notices in view of the pandemic situation, which has to be accepted as a reasonable cause.

The two-member bench headed by N.V. Vasudevan (Vice President) and Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member) set aside the orders of the CIT (A) and remanded the issue to the CIT (A) for a decision afresh after affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

Income Tax Penalty Can't Be Imposed For Committing Unintentional Error In Form-16: ITAT

Case Title: Anmole Singh Ghuman Versus ITO

The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) consisting of S.S. Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial Member) and Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member) has ruled that the income tax penalty cannot be imposed for committing an unintentional error on Form-16.

Loss Arising Out Of Sale Of Government Securities Is A Trading Loss: ITAT

Case Title: Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus The Eluru Cooperative Urban Bank Limited

The Visakhapatnam Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the loss arising out of the sale of government securities is a trading loss.

The two-member bench of Duvvuru Rl Reddy (Judicial Member) and S. Balakrishnan (Accountant Member) observed that the treatment of securities of the AFS (available for sale) categories has to be seen in contradiction and contrast with securities of the HTM (held to maturity) categories, which are purchased and held for the purpose of investment only.

Onus To Prove Identity, Creditworthiness And Genuineness Of Transaction Lies On Assessee: Pune ITAT

Case Title: VEL Software Limited Versus DCIT

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), consisting of Partha Artha Sarathi Chaudhury (Judicial Member) and Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member), has ruled that the onus to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of a transaction lies with the assessee.

Assessee Entitled To Additional Depreciation On The Power Plant And Installed Windmill: Delhi ITAT

Case Title: Nalwa Steel And Power Ltd Versus DCIT

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) consisting of Yogesh Kumar U.S. (Judicial Member) and B.R.R. Kumar (Accountant Member) has ruled that assessees are entitled to additional depreciation on the power plant and the installed windmill.

Assessee Discharges Primary Onus Submitting Documentary Evidence: ITAT Deletes Addition of Unexplained Cash Credits

Case Title: ITO Versus M/s. Hanumant Ingots Pvt. Ltd.

The Raipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), consisting of Ravish Sood (Judicial Member) and Jamlappa D Battu​​ll (Accountant Member), has deleted the addition made on account of unexplained cash credits.

Consideration For Resale Of Computer Software Is Not The Payment Of Royalty For Use Of Copyright In Computer Software: ITAT

Case Title: Kony Inc. Versus ACIT

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) consisting of Chandra Mohan Garg (Judicial Member) and Shamim Yahya (Accountant Member) has held that consideration for the resale of the computer software through End User Licence Agreement (EULA)/distribution agreements is not the payment of royalty for the use of copyright in the computer software and, therefore, not taxable in India.

ITAT Deletes Addition Of Cash Deposited During demonetisation period by Retired Army Officer

Case Title: Col. Ranjan Sharma Versus ITO

The Banglore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) consisting of B.R. Baskaran (Accountant Member) deleted the addition of cash deposits during the demonetisation period on the ground that the retired army officer had withdrawn the cash to meet medical emergencies.

Failure Of Assessee To Give Proper Reasons For Not Appearing Before The Tax Authorities: ITAT Imposes Cost

Case Title: Mrs. Amritha Raj Versus ACIT

The Banglore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) consisting of B.R. Baskaran (Accountant Member) has imposed a cost of Rs.10,000 on the assessee for the failure to give proper reasons for not appearing before the tax authorities.

Notice Imposing Penalty For Concealment Of Income Can't Be Issued Without Specifying The Limb: ITAT

Case Title: Manjriben Pravinchandra Raninga Versus ITO

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that the notice imposing a penalty for concealment of income cannot be issued without specifying the relevant limb.

Violation of RBI Notification Prohibiting Deposit Of Demonetized Notes Does not attract Addition On Account of Unexplained Cash Credits: ITAT

Case Title: Prathamika Krushi Pattina Versus Income Tax Officer

The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) consisting of B.R. Baskaran (Accountant Member) held that violation of the RBI notification prohibiting deposit of demonetized notes does not attract addition on account of unexplained cash credits.

Tuition Fee Is Taxable Only When A Corresponding Service Is Rendered By The Educational Institution: Hyderabad ITAT

Case Title: Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad versus M/s. Hyderabad Educational Institutions Pvt Ltd

The Hyderabad Bench of ITAT has ruled that the tuition fee collected in advance is not taxable in the year of receipt and that the tuition fee is taxable only when a corresponding service is rendered by the educational institution.

The Bench, consisting of K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member) and Rama Kanta Panda (Accountant Member), held that examination fee collected from students on behalf of the foreign universities is not taxable as 'Fees for Technical Services'.

Delay In Filing Audit Reports Due To The Hospitalisation Of Accountant: ITAT Deletes Penalty

Case Title: Swaminath N. Patil Versus The Ward 2(5) Solapur

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted the penalty for delay in filing audit reports due to the hospitalisation of the assessee's accountant.

The two-member bench, led by R. S. Syal (Vice President) and Partha Sarathi Chaudhury (Judicial Member), concluded that the assessee had explained the reasonable cause through documentary evidence.The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT (A) and directed the AO to delete the penalty from the hands of the assessee.

Export Entitlements And Duty Drawback Of Promotion Scheme Is An Income Assessable Under "Profits Or Gains From Business Or Profession": ITAT

Case Title: Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited Versus PCIT

The Visakhapatnam Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that the export entitlements and the duty drawback of the promotion scheme are an income assessable under the head "profits or gains from business or profession" as per clauses (iiib) and (iiid) of section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The two-member bench of Duvvuru Rl Reddy (Judicial Member) and S. Balakrishnan (Accountant Member) concluded that the authorities below failed to appreciate the legislative intent underlying the addition of a clause-(iiid) to Section 28 of the Income Tax Act having retroactive effect.

Loss From Trading In Commodity Derivatives Non-Speculative In Nature, Can Be Set Off Against Regular Business Income: ITAT Lucknow

Case Title: Ramesh Verma versus ACIT

The Lucknow Bench of ITAT has ruled that trading in commodity derivatives, that satisfies the requirements of Clause (e) of the first proviso to Section 43 (5) of the ITAT, 1961, is non-speculative in nature, and thus the loss arising from it can be set off against the regular business income.

The Bench, consisting of A.D. Jain (Vice President) and T.S. Kapoor (Accountant Member), held that there is no bar of expertise required for trading in commodity derivatives and that Clause (e) of the first proviso to Section 43(5) does not require any such expertise.

Society Receiving Grant From Foreign Entity Can't Be Denied Section 12A Registration: ITAT

Case Title: M/s. Share India Versus CIT(E)

The Hyderabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) consisting of K.Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member) and Bhagirath Mal Biyani (Accountant Member) has ruled that the society receiving grant from foreign entity cannot be denied the registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act.

Delayed Audit Report Due To the Delay By Statutory Auditors: ITAT Deletes Penalty

Case Title: Kendrapara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd Versus ITO

The Cuttack Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted the penalty where the assessee has sufficient and reasonable cause for delay in obtaining the audit report.

The two-member bench of George Mathan (Judicial Member) and Arun Khodpia (Accountant Member) has observed that the delay in submitting the audit report was on account of a delay in obtaining the audit report from the statutory auditors. The statutory auditors are appointed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and not by the assessee.

Commission Earned On Distribution Of Indian Mutual Fund Outside India, Not Taxable: ITAT Mumbai

Case Title: Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax versus Credit Suisse (Singapore) Ltd.

The Mumbai Bench of ITAT has ruled that the commission earned on distribution of Mutual Funds schemes of an Indian fund outside India cannot be taxed in India, if all the operations are carried out by the distributor outside India.

The Bench, consisting of Pramod Kumar (Vice President) and Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member), held that merely because the Mutual Funds distributed were controlled and regulated by SEBI and RBI in India, the commission earned by the assessee/distributor cannot be taxed in India, since the said income was not 'reasonably attributable' to any operation carried out in India.

Subsidy Received From The Government In The Form Of Refund Of VAT And CST, To Encourage Industrial Growth, Is A Capital Receipt: Pune ITAT

Case Title: DCIT versus Haldex India Pvt. Ltd.

The Pune Bench of ITAT has ruled that a subsidy granted by the State of Maharashtra, with the objective of encouraging industrial growth in less developed areas of the State, is a capital receipt even though the said subsidy is disbursed in the form of refund of Value Added Tax (VAT) and Central Sales Tax (CST).

The Bench, consisting of S. S. Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial Member) and Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member), reiterated that for considering whether a subsidy is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt, the purpose for which the subsidy has been granted has to be considered and not the manner of its disbursal.

Notice For Reopening Of Assessment Against Dead Person Is Invalid: ITAT Quashes Re-Assessment Order

Case Title: Neelam Dhingra, (through husband and legal heir- Vinod Dhingra) Versus DCIT

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that the notice for reopening of the assessment against the dead person is invalid.

The two-member bench of Kul Bharat (Judicial Member) and Pradeep Kumar (Accountant Member) has observed that the Assessing Officer has accentuated the legal fallacy by continuing to proceed against the dead person by issuing notice under Section 143 (2) and Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act. The re-assessment order passed pursuant to invalid notices for the purposes of reopening the assessment and for assumption of jurisdiction for carrying out the assessment is bad in law and has no legal sanctity.

Depreciation To Be Carried Forward For Set Off In Succeeding Assessment Years: ITAT

Case Title: ACIT Versus Nimit Kumar Aneja

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) headed by G.S. Pannu (President) and C.N. Prasad (Judicial Member) has ruled that in case the depreciation exceeds the business income, then the Assessing Officer should allow the depreciation to be carried forward for set off in succeeding assessment years.

ITAT Deletes Additions As Assessee Proved Genuineness Of Purchases By Documentary Evidence

Case Title: Garg Acrylics Ltd Versus ACIT

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted the additions on the grounds that the assessee proved the genuineness of the purchases through documentary evidence.

The two-member bench of Yogesh Kumar US (Judicial Member) and Pradeep Kumar Khedia (Accountant Member) has excluded the statement of the witness of the department as no opportunity of cross-examination was accorded to the assessee.

Non-Service Of Notice On Assessee: ITAT Quashes Reassessment Order

Case Title: Abhinav Sehgal Versus ITO

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed the reassessment order on the grounds that the notice was not served on the assessee.

The bench of Challa Nagendra Prasad (Judicial Member) found that the department failed to prove proper service of the reassessment notice on the assessee.

Appeal Filed By A Struck Off Company Against The Revenue Department Is Maintainable: ITAT Delhi

Case Title: M/s Dwarka Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

The Delhi Bench of ITAT has ruled that an appeal filed by a Company against the order passed by the revenue department does not become infructuous if, thereafter, the Company has been struck off from the Register of Companies.

The Bench, consisting of Yogesh Kumar U.S. (Judicial Member) and B. R. R. Kumar (Accountant Member), held that a Certificate of Incorporation issued to a Company cannot be treated as cancelled for the purpose of realizing the amount due to the Company and for the payment or discharge of its liabilities.

Reassessment Order Can't Be Made Until There Has Been Service Of Notice: ITAT

Case Title: Naveen Tyagi Versus ITO

The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) consisting of C.N. Prasad (Judicial Member) has observed that reassessment cannot be made until there has been service of notice.

Other Income Tax Additions In Reassessment Proceedings Cannot Be Sustained If Addition on Primary Grounds Is Not Made: ITAT

Case Title: Shri Satyawan Versus ITO

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) consisting of C.N. Prasad (Judicial Member) has observed that if the Assessing Officer does not make any addition on the primary ground on the basis of which proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act were initiated, he cannot make other additions.

Notice Didn't Contain Categorical Indication Of Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Or Concealment Of Particular Income: ITAT Quashes Penalty Proceedings

Case Title: DCIT Versus M/s. Minerals Managements Services India Pvt. Ltd.

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)has quashed the penalty proceedings as the notice issued to the assessee did not mention a categorical indication of specific violation in respect of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of particular income.

The two-member bench headed by G.S. Pannu (President) and Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member) have observed that in the assessment order and penalty order there is apparent ambiguity as to what was the basic ground for penalty. It was also established that the notice issued under section 274 of the Income Tax Act was defective as it was not clear as to which limb the penalty was levied.

ITAT Upholds Addition On Account Of Manipulation And Rigging Of Shares Via Penny Stock Company

Case Title: Aditya Saraf HUF Versus ITO

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), consisting of Saktijit Dey (Judicial Member), has upheld the addition on the grounds that there was an astronomical increase in the price of the shares due to price manipulation and rigging.

Section 41 Disallowance Can Only Be Made With Cogent Evidence Of Cessation Of Liability: ITAT Remands The Matter Back To AO

Case Title: Jain Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT

The Delhi Bench of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)has held that the issue of the genuineness of the purchases will be applicable only if the purchases belong to the current year.

The two-member bench of Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member) and Shamim Yahya (Accountant Member) has observed that if the department is of the opinion that purchases were made in earlier years but now the liability has ceased to exist, disallowance can only be made if cogent evidence is brought on record for cessation of liability.

Income Tax Penalty Can't Be Imposed For Inadvertent And Bonafide Mistake : ITAT

Case Title: M/s. Rane Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), headed by R.S. Syal (Vice President) and Partha Sarathi Chaudhury (Judicial Member), has deleted the penalty on the grounds that the excess claim of deduction was made due to a bona fide and unintentional mistake.