Delhi High Court

Rate Reduction Benefit By Reduction In Prices: Delhi High Court Directs Loreal To Deposit Principal Profiteered Amount

Case Title: Loreal India Private Limited Versus Union Of India

The Delhi High Court has directed Loreal to deposit the principal profiteered amount after deducting the GST imposed on the net profiteered amount in six equal instalments.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has observed that the interest amount directed to be paid by the department as well as the penalty proceedings and investigation by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) in respect of other products sold by Loreal has stayed till further orders.

Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Taxpayer To Utilise Amount Available In Electronic Credit Ledger to Pay Pre-Deposit

Case Title: Oasis Realty Versus The Union of India

The Bombay High Court has held that the taxpayer may utilise the amount available in the Electronic Credit Ledger to pay the 10% of tax in dispute as prescribed under Sub-section (6) of Section 107 of the CGST Act.

The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice A.S. Doctor restored the appeal on the taxpayer's promise to debit the Electronic Credit Ledger within one week of the order being uploaded towards the 10% payable under Section 107(6)(b).

Minimum 30 Days Time To Be Granted To File Reply To GST SCN:Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sheetal Dilip Jain Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

The Bombay High Court has held that Section 73(8) of the Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax Act (MGST Act) permits a person chargeable with tax for a period of 30 days from the issuance of the show-cause notice to make payment of such tax along with interest payable. If he does not wish to make payment, then within the 30 day period he could file a reply to the show-cause notice.

The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice A.S. Doctor has observed that to file a reply to the show-cause notice, the statutory period cannot be arbitrarily reduced to 7 days by the assessing officer.

Calcutta High Court

GST Proceedings Initiated By Anti Evasion And Range Office For The Same Period Is Not Permissible: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: M/s. R. P. Buildcon Private Limited & Anr. Vs. The Superintendent, CGST & CX

The Calcutta High Court has held that since the audit proceedings under Section 65 of the CGST Act have already commenced, it is appropriate that the proceedings should be taken to their logical end. The proceedings initiated by the Anti-Evasion and Range Office for the same period will not be continued.

The division bench of Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya has observed that three wings of the same department are proceeding against the appellants for the same period.

Calcutta High Court Directs State Government To Make Scheme Providing Industrial Incentives GST- Compliant

Case Title: Emami Agrotech Ltd. versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that industrial units cannot be kept in a limbo and denied the incentives, which were specifically promised to them, on the ground of change of the tax regime from VAT to GST.

The Single Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that the issue of legitimate expectation was involved in the case, and hence, the Court directed the Department of Industry, Commerce and Enterprises, Government of West Bengal and the Finance Department, to make the Scheme providing incentives to industries GST-compliant.

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Rejection Of GST Refund Application By Axis Bank

Case Title: Axis Bank Ltd. Versus The Union Of India

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed the rejection of a GST refund application by Axis Bank and remanded the matter back to the original authority.

The division bench of Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu has referred to a circular dated 25.09.2021 issued clarifying that the insertion of rule (1A) to Rule 89 provides a time limit of 2 years. The two-year time limit would apply from the date of the introduction of the said rule and not from the date of payment of GST.

ITAT

Income From Operating And Maintaining IT Park To Be Assessed Under "Income from Business": ITAT

Case Title: DCIT Versus M/s. N.V.Developers Pvt. Ltd.

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the income from operating and maintaining an IT park is to be assessed under the head "Income from Business".

The two-member bench of Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member) and M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member) has observed that the income from letting out the premises/developing space along with other facilities in an industrial park, SEZ is to be charged to tax under the head "profits and gains of business."

ITAT Allows Deduction To ICICI Bank On Interest Expense On Perpetual Bonds

Case Title: The ACIT Versus ICICI Bank

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed ICICI Bank the deduction on interest expense on perpetual bonds.

The two-member bench of Kavitha Rajagopal (Judicial Member) and Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member) has observed that merely that RBI recognises treating the said debt instruments as additional tier/capital would not change the nature of Innovative Perpetual Debt Instruments, which were of the nature of long-term borrowings and the interest paid was debited to the profit and loss account.

ITAT Disallows Cost of improvement As Assessee Did Not Produce Supporting Bills, Vouchers, Source Of Funds

Case Title: Late Smt. Bhanuben Dhanji Shah Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Range–23(2), Mumbai

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has disallowed the cost of improvement as the assessee failed to produce supporting bills, vouchers, sources of funds, etc.

The two-member bench of Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) and Om Prakash Kant (Accountant Member) noted that the claim of the assessee was denied by the lower authorities in the absence of proof with regard to the cost of improvement claimed by the assessee.

Self-Certified Copies Of Documents Are Sufficient For Claiming Exemption Under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act: ITAT

Case Title: Radheyshyam Mandir Trust Versus CIT(Exemption)

The Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the self-certified copies of documents are sufficient for the purpose of claiming exemption under section 12AA of the Income Tax Act.

The two-member bench of Dr.S. Seethalakshmi (Judicial Member) and Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai (Accountant Member) have observed that CIT(E) has erroneously passed the order without considering that the assessee has submitted all the necessary documents which were raised in the form of queries.

ITAT Allows 60% Depreciation On ATM machines As Applicable To Computer Software

Case Title: M/s. Financial Software and Systems Private Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed the 60% depreciation on ATM machines as applicable to computer software.

The two-member bench of Sonjoy Sharma (Judicial Member) and G. Manjunatha (Accountant Member) has observed that once the assessee is entitled to 60% of depreciation on ATM machines, the Assessing Officer has to work out the depreciation right from the beginning at 60% to compute WDV.

Extracts of Land Revenue Records, Not Sufficient Evidence To Prove Agricultural Activity: ITAT

Case Title: Noshir Darabshaw Talati Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–7(1), Mumbai

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld that the assessee is against the addition made on account of short-term capital gains by treating the land as a capital asset.

The two-member bench headed by Pramod Kumar (Vice President) and Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) has observed that apart from the purchase and sale deeds of conveyance and 7/12 extracts from land revenue records, no other evidence has been brought on record by the assessee of having cultivated the land or carrying any agricultural activity during the period when the land was held by the assessee or period prior or subsequent to its sale.

TDS Provisions Not Applicable To Commission Paid To Bank: ITAT

Case Title: DCIT Versus M/s. Sareen Sports Industries

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that TDS provisions are not applicable to commissions paid to banks.

The two-member bench of Saktijit Dey (Judicial Member) and Dr B.R.R. Kumar (Accountant Member) has observed that commission paid to partners is not covered under Section 194H of the Income Tax Act as there is no employer and employee or principal-agent relationship between the partners and the firm.

CESTAT

Customs Broker Is Responsible For Acts Of The Employees: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s Meghna Clearing and Forwarding P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Export)

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that for the act of an employee, direct responsibility is fixed on the customs broker.

The bench of Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) has confirmed the penalty and relied on para 13(12) of the CHA Licencing Regulation, 2004 which says, "the customs broker shall exercise such supervision as may be necessary to ensure proper conduct of his employees in the transaction of business and he shall be held responsible for all acts and omissions of his employees during their employment."

Service Tax Not Leviable On Business Exhibition Service Performed Outside India: CESTAT

Case Title: Rama Cylinders Pvt. Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & S.T.

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service tax is not leviable on business exhibition services performed outside India.

The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) observed that as per Rule 3 of Sub Rule (II) of the Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India and Received in India) Rules 2006, a service can be taxable in the hand of the recipient of the service in India only when the part of the service is performed in India.

Change In Taxation Regime Should Not Affect Credit Availment Right Of Assessee: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. Monochem Graphics Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Delhi West

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a change in the taxation regime should not affect the credit availment right of the assessee.

The bench of Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) observed that, under Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act, the appellant's right, privilege, and right to credit cannot be affected solely because the refund was rejected due to the limitation being passed after December 27, 2017.

CESTAT Allows Vodafone Idea To Avail CENVAT Credit Against Debit Notes

Case Title: Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise versus Vodafone Idea Limited

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed Vodafone Idea Limited to avail CENVAT credit on the debit notes issued to it, pertaining to reimbursements of diesel and electricity costs, on which service tax liability under Finance Act, 1994 had been discharged.

The Bench of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and C J Mathew (Technical Member) ruled that CENVAT credit can be availed against invoices or debit notes that contain substantially the same information as prescribed in Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

No Liability On Vivo To Pay Customs Duty On Import Of Microphones Forming Part Of Mobile Phones: CESTAT

Case Title: Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner Customs

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Vivo is not liable to pay customs duty on the import of microphones as they form a part of cellular mobile phones.

The two-member bench of Rachna Gupta (Judicial member) and P. Venkata Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that only 10% of customs duty is being imposed upon such goods which are part of cellular mobile phones, except for microphones/wired headsets/receivers.

AAR

HTP Kirloskar Power Sprayer Attracts 18% GST: AAR

Applicant's Name: Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd.

The Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the 18% GST is payable on HTP Kirloskar Power Sprayer.

The two-member bench of Amit Kumar Mishra and Milind Kavatkar has observed that HTP Kirloskar Power Sprayer's merit classification under HSN 8424 89 90 is covered under Entry No. 325 of Schedule-III of Notification No. 1/20l7-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.6.2017.

No GST On Subsidised Deduction made From Employees Availing Food In Factory Or Corporate Office: Gujarat AAR

Applicant's Name: M/s. Zydus Lifesciences Ltd.

The Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that GST is not payable on the subsidised deduction made by the applicant from the employees who are availing food in the factory/corporate office.

The two-member bench of Amit Kumar Mishra and Milind Kavatkar has observed that the subsidised deduction made by the applicant from the employees who are availing food in the factory/corporate office would not be considered a supply.