All India Annual Digest of Tax Cases 2022-Supreme Court, High Courts And Tribunals (2023)

Supreme Court

Case Title: CIT Versus Swapnil Finance Pvt. Ltd.

The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal on the ground of low tax effects. The division bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that the monetary limit to file an appeal before the Supreme Court is Rs. 2 crores.

Case Title: State of Jharkhand and others Versus Linde India Limited and Another

The Supreme Court has held that the main function of oxygen in manufacturing steel is to reduce the carbon content; therefore, it can be considered a refining agent but not a raw material, so the concessional rate of sales tax is not available on oxygen.

The division bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh has set aside the order passed by the Jharkhand High Court and restored the orders passed by assessing officers to revisional authority—the Joint Commissioner.

Case Title: OCL India Limited vs State of Orissa

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 911

The Supreme Court upheld States' power to impose entry tax from Industrial Township/Areas.

The bench of CJI UU Lalit, Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and J B Pardiwala held that industrial townships are 'local area' for the purposes of entry tax.

Case Title: Union of India versus Real Strips Ltd.

Case Title: Tata Motors Limited Versus Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority & Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 847

The Supreme Court has directed the state of Andhra Pradesh to transfer to Jharkhand the amount of central sales tax deposited by Tata Motors with respect to the sale of buses to the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC).

The division bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari observed that after due verification, the amount of central sales tax paid by Tata Motors with respect to the transaction be transferred to Jharkhand immediately on verification. The State of Jharkhand was directed to adjust it towards the central sales tax liability of Tata Motors on sales effected through RSO, Vijayawada with respect to vehicles/buses sold to APSRTC, which were found to be in the nature of inter-state sales.

Case Title: M/s Shree Enterprise Coal Sales Pvt Ltd. Versus Union Of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 774

The Supreme Court has held that disputes related to tax concessions are not arbitrable.

The division bench of Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli has observed that the High Court was in error in holding that the terms of e-auction provided that any dispute was arbitrable. Undoubtedly, a contractual dispute would be amenable to being resolved by arbitration. However, in the present case, the relief related to tax concessions was not of an arbitrable nature.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Case Title: Commissioner of Customs And Central Excise, Amritsar (Punjab) v. M/s. D.L. Steels Etc. Civil Appeal Nos. 2360-2376 of 2009

The Supreme Court held that 'anardana' or dried pomegranate seeds would fall under Heading 1209 of the Tariff entries issued under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as classified by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, attracting a custom duty at the rate of 5%, till the Revenue takes a considered policy decision regarding its classification.

The issue before the Bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi was that revenue authorities (appellant) asserted that 'anardana' falls under the Heading 0813 of the Tariff entries, and would incur custom duty at the rate of 30%, while the importers claimed that it is covered by Heading 1209 and attracts duty at the rate of 5%.

Case Title : Union of India vs. M/s Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 628

In a relief to several assessees who missed the statutory deadline, the Supreme Court has directed the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) to allow a 2-month additional window from September 1, 2022 to October 31, 2022 for claiming Transitional Credit.

TRAN-1 and TRAN-forms were brought to allow assessees to carry forward pre-GST credits to the GST system. As per the GST Rules, such claims had to be filed within 90 days from the date when the GST Act came into force (July 1, 2017). Different High Courts passed directions for extending the timeline, against which the GST department approached the Supreme Court.

Pradeep Goyal vs Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 654

The Supreme Court has directed the GST Council to issue advisory / instructions / recommendations to the respective States regarding implementation of the system of electronic (digital) generation of a Document Identification Number (DIN) in the indirect tax administration.

The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed that the system, which is already being implemented by the States of Karnataka and Kerala, would be in the larger public interest and enhance good governance. It will bring in transparency and accountability in the indirect tax administration, which are so vital to efficient governance, the bench said.

Service Tax On Composite Works Contracts Not Leviable Prior To 2007 Amendment To Finance Act 1994 : Supreme Court

Case Name: M/s. Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes And Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 656

The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, held that service tax could not be levied on composite works contracts prior to the introduction of the Finance Act, 2007, which by amending the Finance Act, 1994 had introduced Section 65(105)(zzzza) defining works contracts. The Apex Court noted that in the absence of a charging section and the modalities to levy and assess, service tax cannot be levied on the service element of works contract.

Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s. Vallabh Textiles Versus Senior Intelligence Officer

The Delhi High Court has directed the GST department to return the amount of Rs. 1.80 crores along with 6% interest as the recovery of tax made during the search was not voluntary.

The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that no recovery of tax should be made during search, inspection, or investigation unless it is voluntary.

Case Title: ReNew Hans Urja Pvt. Ltd. vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

The Delhi High Court has granted interim protection against the retrospective denial of the vested right of the benefit of concessional rate of duty under project import regulations granted to solar power developers.

The Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju have directed the customs authorities to refrain from taking any precipitative steps at the time of import of goods pursuant to the registration of contracts under the Project Import Regulations, 1986.

Case Title: Dhruv Krishan Maggu Versus Principal Directorate General

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1187

The Delhi High Court has refused to release laptops, computers, documents, and other things that were seized by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) during the search.

The single bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh has observed that the "documents, books, or things" can be retained for a maximum period of four and a half years, within which period the notice has to be issued, plus thirty days from the date of the erroneous refund.

Case Title: R.K. Overseas Versus Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI

The Delhi High Court has held that the exporter is otherwise not entitled to duty drawback and, if already paid, is liable to be reimbursed because the buyer did not send any export proceeds within the required time frame.

The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that since the amount that is lying credited to the petitioner's account, concededly, represents a part of the duty drawback sanctioned in favor of the petitioner against 20 shipping bills, no such direction can be issued that would ultimately result in the petitioner getting access to the funds.

Case Title: Balaji Enterprises Versus Principal Additional Director General

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 986

The Delhi High Court has quashed the order cancelling the GST registration as the Range Inspector has physically verified the premises, neither by serving any notice of the physical verification nor in the report generated after the verification was uploaded on the portal.

The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that there was an infraction of the provisions of Rule 25 of the CGST and the order has gone beyond the frame of the Show Cause Notice.

Case Title: Kishan Lal Kuria Mal International versus Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 949

The Delhi High Court has directed the department to grant IGST refund paid on the goods exported after deducting the differential amount of duty drawback.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the Jurisdictional Commissionerates shall be entitled to verify the extent of duty drawback availed by the petitioners and also whether they have availed duty drawback/CENVAT Credit of Central Excise & Service Tax component in respect of the exports made by them. If any adjustment is to be made, it shall be made by the jurisdictional commissionerate.

Case Title: M/s Victory Electric Vehicles International Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 950

The Delhi High Court has held that it is obligatory on the part of the concerned officer to ensure that prior to the issuance of the show-cause notice (SCN), a pre-notice consultation is held with the person chargeable with customs duty or interest.

The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the person chargeable with duty or interest was required to be given fifteen days to make his submission, in writing, concerning the grounds communicated to him in the pre-consultation notice, which is required to be served prior to the issuance of the SCN.

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.

Case Title: Commissioner of CGST Delhi East Versus Anand and Anand

The Delhi High Court has held that the assessee is entitled to a refund of unutilized CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on account of the export of legal services under rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed that, as per Rule 5, as long as the service provider provides an output service which is exported without payment of service tax, such a service provider will be eligible for a refund of CENVAT credit.

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.

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).

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.

Case Title: Bimal Kothari Versus Assistant Commissioner

The Delhi High Court has held that the GST department failed to issue the notice to the person who must be present at the time of physical verification of business premises.

The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the verification report, though generated, has not been uploaded, as required, in Form GST REG-30 on the common portal.

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.

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.

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.

Case Title: Gulati Enterprises versus Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 604

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a voluntary statement made before the revenue authorities cannot substitute a statutory pre-show cause consultation notice, as contemplated under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017, as it stood before 15.10.2020.

The Division Bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju dismissed the contentions of the revenue department that because the petitioner's authorized representative gave a voluntary statement before the concerned officer, the need for issuing a pre-show cause consultation notice was waived.

Case Title: ACME Heergarh Powertech Private Limited vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and Anr.

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju issued notice and restrained the customs officer from taking any coercive action against the petitioners assailing the legality of Board Instruction No. 13/2022 dated 9.07.2022. The instruction was issued by the CBIC with regards to the inapplicability of the Manufacturing and Other Operations in Warehouse (no. 2) Regulations, 2019 (MOOWR Scheme) on solar power generating units.

Case Title: ACME Heergarh Powertech Private Limited vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and Anr.

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Vitasta Ganju has stayed the show cause notice issued by the commissioner to revoke the licence under the Manufacturing and Other Operations in Warehouse (no. 2) Regulations, 2019 (MOOWR).

Case Title: Nirmal Kumar Mahaveer Kumar Versus Commissioner of CGST

The Delhi High Court has held that the petitioner/taxpayer needs to be given another chance to establish why the subject goods did not reach their designated designation before the expiry of the e-way bill.

The division bench of Justice Rajeev Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has remanded the matter to the respondent to take a fresh decision on the matter, after giving the petitioner due opportunity to produce relevant material and evidence to establish its case.

Case Title: M/s Combitic Global Caplet Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India

The Delhi High Court has held that duty drawback for goods should extend to unutilized goods which were available at the time of conversion of the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) unit into a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU).

The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakhdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the restriction against the claim of concession in duties and taxes applied only vis-à-vis plants, machinery and equipment that had already been installed. The petitioner was allowed to carry forward the advance authorization to the convertedunit,t i.e., 100% EOU, and thereafter fulfil the outstanding export commitment.

Case Title: Curil Tradex Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 905

The Delhi High Court has held that the physical verification of business premises for GST registration without issuing a notice is a violation of the principle of natural justice.

The division bench of Justice Rajeev Shakdher and Justice Taravitasta Ganju has noted that the proper officer opted to have the petitioner's business premises inspected, albeit without the presence of its authorised representative. Had notice or intimation been given, the glitch could have been overcome.

Case Title: Seema Gupta Versus Union Of India

The Delhi High Court has held that Goods and Service Tax is not payable on renting a residential dwelling for personal use.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh has observed that the rental of a residential dwelling to a proprietor of a registered proprietorship firm who rents it in his personal capacity for use as his own residence and not for use in the course or furtherance of the business of his proprietorship firm and such renting is on his own account and not that of the proprietorship firm, shall be exempt from tax under Notification No.04/2022-Central Tax (Rate) dated 13.07.2022.

Bombay High Court

Case Title: Hyprecision Hydraulik versus State of Maharashtra & Ors.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that failure to furnish a declaration duly certified by the Octroi Inspector, would not render the importer ineligible for refund of Octroi Duty under Section 194(2) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act).

The Bench of Acting Chief Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Arif S. Doctor held that production of a duly certified octroi exemption form is not a substantive requirement but merely a procedural requirement to enable an eligible party to claim refund of Octroi under Section 194(2), on imports made in pursuance of a specified contract executed with the Government.

Case Title: Asit C. Mehta Financial Services Limited versus The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the time limit within which the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) is required to refer the statement of the case to the High Court, as prescribed in Section 130A (4) of the Customs Act, 1962, is only directory and not imperative in nature.

The Division Bench of Justices K.R. Shriram and A.S. Doctor held that the CESTAT is a judicial body, over whose actions the revenue authorities have no control. It added that if the time limit within which the CESTAT is required to make a reference, as provided in Section 130A (4), is construed as mandatory, it might deprive the revenue authorities of their right to have a question of law considered by the High Court.

Case Title: Euro Pratik Sales Corporation Vs. Union of India and Ors

The Bombay High Court has held that it will be wholly unfair if the assessee ends up having to forgo the deemed excise credit, particularly when under Section 29(3) his liability will continue even after cancellation of registration.

Case Title: M/s. Sanathan Textile Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India

The Bombay High Court has held that notification no. 79/2017-Customs dated October 13, 2017, amending notification no. 16/2015-Customs and granting exemption from the IGST to the capital goods imported under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCG Scheme) is clarifying and curative.

The division bench of Justice K.R. Sriram and Justice Arif S. Doctor has directed the department to refund in cash the IGST paid on imports of capital goods made during the period 01.07.2017 to 12.10.2017.

Case Title: M/s. Renaissance Global Limited versus Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition No.2003 of 2009)

The Bombay High Court has ruled that import of finished jewellery for the purpose of melting and remaking of fresh pieces of jewellery in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), is an authorised operation. Therefore, the Court held that there is no prohibition on import of finished jewellery for remaking, without payment of Customs Duty, in terms of Rule 27(1) of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006 (SEZ Rules).

Case Title: Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Ltd. Vs. The Union of India and Ors.

The Bombay High Court has allowed the assessee, Nuvoco Vistas, to file GST TRAN-1 to avail of the transitional Input Service Distributor (ISD) credit of service tax.

The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice A.S. Doctor has observed that the GST TRAN-1 or revised GST TRAN-1 filed by the units or offices will be based on the manual ISD invoices to be issued by the petitioner's ISD, subject to aggregate credit not exceeding the ISD credit available to the petitioner.

Case Title: Nayana Premji Savala versus The Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 404

The Bombay High Court has ruled that service tax would be applicable on transfer of goods only in cases where there is no "transfer of right to use" the said goods.

The bench of Justices K. R. Shriram and A. S. Doctor ruled that in view of Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution of India, transfer of right to use goods is a deemed sale, which is subject to Sales Tax/VAT. The Court added that Article 366 (29A) of the Constitution does not distinguish between an owner or a lessor of the goods. Thus, the bench ruled that lease of goods for valuable consideration on a "transfer of right to use" basis is a deemed sale, even if the transferor is not the owner of the said goods.

Case Title: Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. versus Union of India & Ors.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that penalty or interest on additional customs duty (CVD) and special additional duty of customs (SAD), or surcharge, which is not connected to the basic customs duty, cannot be imposed in the absence of an explicit substantive provision.

The Division Bench of Justices K.R. Shriram and A.S. Doctor observed that there was no substantive provision which obligated the assessee to pay interest or penalty on CVD or SAD, leviable under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, or on the surcharge leviable under the Finance Act, 2000.

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).

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.

Case Title: Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. Versus Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax Nodal 9

The Bombay High Court has held that the rights of secured creditors to realise secured debts shall have priority over government dues, including revenues, taxes, cesses, and rates due to the Central Government, State Government, or local authority under the SARFAESI Act.

The three judge bench headed by Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta, Justice M.S.Karnik and Justice N.J. Jamadar has observed that the Sales Tax Commissioners did not claim that they registered the claim with the CERSAI to adhere to the mandate contained in section 26B(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Non-registration of the claim and/or order of attachment entails the consequences envisaged under section 26C (2) of the SARFAESI Act. Thus, dual disability sets in. Firstly, in the absence of material to show that the first charge under section 37 of the MVAT Act was enforced by a valid attachment order before the registration of security interest by the petitioner/secured creditors with the CERSAI, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the right of priority under section 26E of the SARFAESI Act. Secondly, with the registration of the security interest with the CERSAI on July 9, 2020, coupled with the absence of registration of the department's demand and order of attachment, the claim of the respondents/department becomes subservient to the right of the secured creditor.

Case Title – SAT Industries Limited v. Union of India & Anr.

The Bombay High Court on Monday issued notice to Maharashtra government and central government in a petition challenging amendment to Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules).

"Petitioner is challenging both CGST as well as MGST Rules in this regard. Therefore, notice has to be issued to the learned Attorney General of India as well as the Advocate General", the court stated.

Justices K.R. Shriram and A.S. Doctor, were dealing with a writ petition challenging the amendment to Rule 21A of the CGST Rules, 2017.

Case Title: Arun Krishnachandra Goswami Vs. Union of India

The Bombay High Court has held that the taxpayer has made a mistake and instead of paying the Government of India through the CGST authorities and the State of Maharashtra through the SGST authorities, the entire amount was paid to the Government of India through Indian Railways.

The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice A.S. Doctor has directed that the amounts which have been wrongly paid to railways should be paid to the CGST authorities and SGST authorities within two weeks.

Case Title: Ramani Suchit Malushte Versus Union of India and Ors.

The Bombay High Court has held that the limitation period would start only after the affixing of signatures on the GST registration cancellation order.

"Only on the date on which the signature of Respondent issuing authority was put on the order dated November 14, 2019, for the purpose of attestation, would time to file an appeal commence," the division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice A.S. Doctor said.

Case Title: Smarte Solutions Pvt. Ltd. versus Union of India and Ors.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the requirement of holding an Import Export Code (IEC) number at the time of rendering services in order to avail the benefits under the Services Export from India Scheme (SEIS), as imposed by the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 (FTP), is against the intent and purpose of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act).

The Division Bench of Justices S.V. Gangapurwala and Vinay Joshi held that the said condition cannot be termed as mandatory in nature for availing the benefits under the SEIS since it is against the principal legislation, i.e., the FTDR Act.

The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Milind N. Jadhav has observed that the rejection of the petitioner's declaration on the ground that the final audit report was issued after June 30, 2019 was incorrect.

Case Title: S. J. Enterprises & Anr. versus Union of India

The Bombay High Court has reiterated that Customs Authorities cannot encash the Bank Guarantee furnished by the assessee before the expiry of the statutory period available for filing an appeal.

The Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice M. S. Sonak ruled that despite the assurances given to the Bombay High Court in the case of Legrand (India) Pvt. Ltd. versus Union of India (2007), the Customs Authorities had breached the law by adopting coercive measures and encashing the Bank Guarantees before the expiry of the limitation period available for filing a statutory appeal.

Case Title: Unichem Laboratories Limited versus Union of India and Ors.

The Bombay High Court has directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to issue a clarification in relation to the distribution/ reporting of the ISD credit.

The Bench of Justices K.R. Shriram and Gauri Godse was dealing with a batch of writ petitions, highlighting the difficulties faced by the petitioners in the distribution/ reporting of the ISD credit.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that by virtue of section 129E of the Customs Act, the right to appeal is a conditional right. The legislature, in its wisdom, has imposed a condition of deposit of a percentage of duty demanded or penalty levied or both.

The three-judge bench of Justice R.D. Dhanuka, Justice Nitin W. Sambre, and Justice Abhay Ahuja has observed that the fiscal legislation can very well stipulate as a requirement of law a mandatory pre-deposit as a condition precedent for an appeal to be entertained by the appellate authority. Thus, section 129E of the Customs Act cannot be held to be unconstitutional.

Case Title: Vodafone Idea Limited versus UOI and Ors.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the international Inbound Roaming Services (IIR) and the International Long Distance (ILD) Services provided by Vodafone Idea to Foreign Telecom Operators (FTOs) is an export of services, and thus, Vodafone Idea is eligible for the refund of the IGST paid by it.

The Bench, consisting of Justices K. R. Shriram and Milind N. Jadhav, observed that Vodafone Idea had entered into agreements with the FTOs and that there was no mention of any agreement with the subscribers of the FTOs. Hence, the Court ruled that the subscribers of the FTO cannot be considered as the recipient of the services and that the said services rendered by Vodafone Idea were supplied to the FTOs.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Case Title: M/s Louis Dreyfus Company India Private Limited Versus Union Of India

The Gujarat High Court has directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to refund the Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) on ocean freight within six weeks along with the statutory rate of interest.

The division bench of Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Bhargav D. Karia has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India in which GST on ocean freight was struck down.

Case Title: Mohmed Hasan Aslam Kaliwala Versus State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 338

The Gujarat High Court has granted bail to a person alleged to have created a fictitious entity to pass an ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC).

The single bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora has directed the release of the applicant on bail, subjected to a deposition of Rs. 2 crore before the office of the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Division 8, Enforcement, Surat within a period of 2 months from the applicant's release.

Case Title: M/S Firmenich Aromatics Production (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India

The Gujarat High Court has issued a notice to the central and state government seeking to know the steps taken for constituting the GST Tribunal.

The bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna M. Bhatt was presiding over the petition, which involved the issue of the non-formation of the GST Tribunal, which has not been formulated though nearly five years have passed.

Case Title: Shree Govind Alloys Versus State of Gujarat

The Gujarat High Court has held that mere e-way bill expiry does not establish an intention to evade taxes.

The division bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna M. Bhatt has observed that the detention was on the ground that the goods were subject to the expiration of the e-way bill number, which had expired during the transit, and this cannot be the ground for detaining and seizing M.S. Billet along with the truck.

Case Title: FCS Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs Deputy Director Of Income Tax

The Gujarat High Court has directed the department to release the bank account from the attachment of the subsidiary of the Taiwan Company subject to the personal undertakings of the directors.

The division bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna M. Bhatt, in order to secure the revenue's interest, has directed the department to continue the attachment of FD with DBS amounting to Rs. 2.65 crores.

Case Title: Shree Govind Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

The Gujarat High Court has held that the department could not establish any element of tax evasion with fraudulent intent or negligence.

The division bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna M. Bhatt has observed that the delay was of almost 4 1⁄2 hours before the e-Way bill could expire. It appeared to be bonafide and without establishing any fraudulent intention.

Case Title: Atlafbhai Rajabali Dosani Vs Superintendent

The Gujarat High Court has quashed the order of cancellation of registration and directed the department to restore the registration of the petitioner.

The division bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna M. Bhatt has observed that the zero supply led the petitioner to believe that he was not required to file the returns. The assessee's consultant had not advised him correctly, which led to the non-filing of the return, which has now been filed.

Case Title: Adani Wilmar Limited versus Union of India

The Gujarat High Court has ruled that the notification issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, enhancing the rate of customs duty, would be applicable only on the bills of entry presented after the said notification was e-published in the electronic Gazette and digitally signed.

Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/s. BASF India Ltd. Versus State of Karnataka

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 461

The Karnataka High Court has held that open purchase orders are only standing offers that do not constitute a confirmed "agreement to sell" and that movements of goods are mere stock transfers.

Case Title: M/s. Subex Limited versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 373

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that where a software embedded into a hardware is exported by the assessee, the proceeds from export of the hardware component is eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the fact that the hardware was separately invoiced and was not manufactured by the assessee, if the software cannot be used independently.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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."

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.

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).

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.

Case Title: Commissioner of Central Tax Vs ABB Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 245

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar and Justice Anant Ramanath Hedge has held that the assessee is not liable for the suppression of facts as the show cause notice was issued on the basis of the disclosures made in the balance sheet.

Case Title: M/s Bellatrix Consultancy Services Versus The Commissioner of Central Tax

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar and Justice Anant Ramanath Hedge has held that the limitation period is not applicable to a refund of service tax wrongly paid.

Case Title: M/s. D.P.J. Bidar-Chincholi (Annuity) Road Project Pvt Ltd.

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect and Customs (CBIC) clarifying that GST is not exempt on the annuity (deferred payments) paid for the construction of roads and allowed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner.

The single bench of Justice M.I. Arun observed that a circular which clarifies the notification cannot have the effect of overruling the notification.

Case Title: Al Tisource Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax

The Karnataka High Court has held that the interest on a delayed tax refund is payable on the expiration of 3 months from the date of filing the refund application.

The single bench of Justice R. Krishna Kumar has observed that merely because there were certain deficiencies or lacunae in the refund claim by the petitioner, the circumstance cannot be relied upon or made the basis by the respondent or department to contend that it was entitled to pass the refund sanction order beyond the prescribed statutory period of three months.

Case Title: Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd.

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the provisional attachment of fixed deposits worth Rs. 3700 crores against Xiaomi. The single bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar has quashed the provisional attachment of the fixed deposit subjected to various conditions.

Allahabad High Court

Case Title: State Of U.P. Versus M/S Maa Vindhyavasini Tobacco Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 480

The Allahabad High Court has held that the demand for tax and penalty cannot be imposed on the basis of conjecture and surmise, especially in cases where the goods were accompanied by a tax invoice and E-way bill.

Case Title: Mahavir Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 418

The Allahabad High Court has held that the goods lying in the gowndown cannot be seized by invoking section 129 of the CGST Act. The power of seizure can be exercised only in the case of goods in transit and not for goods lying in godown.

The single bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh has observed that it is unbelievable that two (not one) authorities of the Mobile Squad of the Commercial Tax Department chose to act with negligence. The provision of Section 129(3) of the CGST Act could not be invoked to subject a godown premises to a search and seizure operation. The department was unmindful of the Act as no action was taken under Section 67. Section 67 of the CGST relates to the existence of "reasons to believe" that premise is subject to search and seizure of goods or documents found therein.

Case Title: Varun Gupta Versus Union Of India

The Allahabad High Court has held that the department has neither recorded the opinion nor referred to any tangible material which necessitated him to pass the provisional attachment order to protect the interest of the government revenue.

The division bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerji has directed the department to pay the cost of Rs. 50,000 to the petitioner/assessee.

Case Title: Umesh Kumar Versus State Of U.P. [Writ Tax No. - 648 of 2021]

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 513

The Allahabad High Court has held that the rejection of registration solely on the ground of delay in moving the revocation application is not sustainable in law when the entire tax is deposited.

The single bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal has observed that once the department has accepted the return and there are no outstanding dues, the department should not obstruct the business of an assessee.

Kerala High Court

Case Title: State Tax Officer & Anr Vs. Baiju A.A

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 462

The Kerala High Court has held that legislative competence to amend the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act after the introduction of the GST Act is impermissible.

The division bench of S.V.Bhatti and Justice Basant Balaji has observed that the amendment made by the Finance Act of 2018 to the provisions of the erstwhile KVAT Act to enable the department to initiate assessment proceedings in respect of assessments pending as of March 31, 2018 was illegal because the KVAT Act has already been repealed.

Case Title: Hindustan Steel and Cement Versus Assistant State Tax Officer

The Kerala High Court has held that assessees have a statutory right to file an appeal even after the voluntary payment of GST or penalty.

The single bench of Justice Gopinath has observed that the culmination of proceedings in respect of a person who seeks to make payment of tax and penalty under Section 129(1)(a) does not result in the generation of a summary of an order under Form DRC-07 and cannot result in the right of the person to file an appeal under Section 107 being deprived.

Case Title: Sanskruthi Motors Versus The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) II

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 458

The Kerala High Court has held that the officer is duty bound to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner for the expiry of the e-way bill.

The single bench of Justice Gopinath P has observed that the officer rejected the explanation offered by the petitioner by stating that no evidence of repair being carried out has been produced. The officer imposed a penalty/tax on the grounds that the petitioner had ample time to revalidate the E-way bill.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Case Title: B. Madhukumar Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 540

The Kerala High Court has held that collection charges are not payable if a VAT defaulter opts for the Kerala Amnesty Scheme, 2017.

The single bench of Gopinath P. has noted that the petitioner had settled the liabilities in terms of the provisions contained in the Amnesty Scheme of 2017, which was introduced by the provisions contained in the Kerala Finance Act 2017.

Case Title: M/s Crescent Construction Versus Deputy Commissioner of State Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 631

The Kerala High Court has held that the mistake of applying the wrong value-added tax (VAT) rate can be rectified.

The single bench of Justice Gopinath P. has observed that, as per Section 66 of the KVAT Act, once it is brought to the notice of the officer that there is a mistake in applying the correct rate of tax, it is within the power conferred on the officer to rectify the mistake.

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

Case Title: Malik Builders Versus UOI

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 228

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a person making "Voluntary Disclosure" after being subjected to any enquiry, investigation, or audit is clearly ineligible to avail the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS, 2019).

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas has observed that the petitioner fell within the mischief under Section 125(1)(f) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 and was thus not entitled to avail the benefit of the SVLDRS, 2019 by submitting a declaration. The petitioner suppressed the most material fact of its having been subjected to audit proceedings vide intimation dated 28.11.2019 while submitting its declaration on 31.12.2019. It was to mislead the authorities by withholding relevant information, upon disclosure of which its declaration was not liable to be proceeded further. The petitioner, by suppression, procured benefit by way of the issuance of a discharge certificate.

Case Title: Sudershan Lal Gupta & Ors. versus Union of India & Ors.

The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the levy of GST on reverse charge basis on royalty of mining extraction.

Noting that the Coordinate Benches of the Rajasthan High Court, in several cases, have dismissed the writ petitions challenging the levy of GST on royalty, the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Shubha Mehta ruled that it was bound by the final orders passed by the Coordinate Benches.

Case Title: Himachal Futuristic Communications Limited v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 211

The Rajasthan High Court recently set aside a single bench decision which permitted levy of duty under the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 on an amalgamation instrument executed outside the State pursuant to sanction of Himachal Pradesh High Court, not only in relation to properties situated in Rajasthan, but also on the transfer of shares.

Case Title: M/s. Shrimali Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Of Rajasthan

The Rajasthan High Court has held that, by no stretch of imagination, can brand new aluminium sections be placed on equivalence with aluminium scrap. The goods were fraudulently described as aluminium scrap.

The division bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Kuldeep Mathur has observed that the department was justified in detaining the petitioner's vehicle and the goods after noticing the blatant mis-description during interception.

Case Title: Kamal Chand Bothra Versus Union Of India

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha has granted bail to the person accused of GST evasion of Rs. 8.64 crore. The court directed that the petitioner be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.

Case Title: Baker Hughes Asia Pacific Limited Vs Union of India

The Rajasthan High Court has held that the GST circular dated 31.03.2020, repugnant to the parent legislation, cannot be applied to oust the legitimate claim for an accumulated ITC refund.

The division bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani has observed that the supplying dealer would be entitled to claim a refund of accumulated unutilised tax credit under Section 54 (3) (ii) of the CGST Act irrespective of the fact that the input and output supplies are the same by ignoring the circular dated 31.03.2020.

Case Title: Shree Basant Bhandar Int Udyog v. Union of India

The Rajasthan High Court has granted stay on recovery of GST on royalty paid by the Petitioners on mining activity.

The order comes in a bunch of writ petitions filed primarily involving the issue of permissibility of raising demand of GST on royalty. The petitioners in these petitions challenged the notifications whereby, royalty paid by them on mining activity is being subjected to GST and/or notices issued for alleged incriminating discrepancies in returns after scrutiny and analogous proceedings.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Case Title: A.H. Marble Crafts, Through Proprietor Mohammad Afzal Vs Commissioner Tax

The Rajasthan High Court has held that the Goods and Service Tax Identification Number (GSTIN) link cannot be denied merely for providing information in the wrong form.

The division bench, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Kuldeep Mathur, has observed that absolute hyper-technical ground cannot be considered valid so as to deny the petitioner the opportunity to link the GSTIN of his father's firm with the new GSTIN number of the firm.

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

Case Title: M/s Bindal Smelting Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the conditions enumerated in the Exemption Notification No. KA-NI-2-3867, dated 22.12.2001, for availing exemption from Trade Tax under Section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, are mandatory in nature and have to be strictly complied with.

The Single Bench of Justice Alok Mathur held that since the land was not transferred to the applicant before the cut-off date as prescribed under the said Exemption Notification, the applicant could not be considered as a "new unit" and hence, it was not eligible for trade tax exemption under Section 4-A.

Case Title: The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow Versus S/S G.S.C. Toughened Glass

The Allahabad High Court has held that 10% Value Added Tax (VAT) is payable on insulated glass.

The single judge bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh has observed that insulated glass is nothing but double glazed dual sheet (DGDS).

Case Title: Drs Wood Products Lucknow Versus State Of U.P.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 383

The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 for the arbitrary cancellation of GST registration.

The single bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia observed that the arbitrary exercise of power to cancel the registration in the manner in which it has been done has adversely affected the petitioner. It has also had a negative impact on the revenues that could have flowed into the coffers of GST had the petitioner been allowed to conduct commercial activities. The actions were clearly not in consonance with the ease of doing business, which is being promoted at all levels.

Case Title: M/S Ram Krishna Garg Supplier Versus State Of U.P. And 4 Others WRIT TAX No. - 1064 of 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 329

The Allahabad High Court has held that the show cause notice cancelling registration must indicate the reason and the mere mentioning of violation under the CGST Act is not sufficient.

The single bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh has observed that cancellation of registration has the most serious civil consequences. While Section 29(1) of the CGST Act provides for specific grounds for cancellation with effect from the date of the occurrence of certain events, Section 29(2) provides for harsher consequences, including cancellation of registration with a retrospective date. However, a registration may not be cancelled on the mere whims and fancies of the proper officer. It may be cancelled if the registered person contravenes any provision of the Act or Rule or if the person does not furnish returns for three tax periods consecutively or does not furnish returns for six months continuously. The registration can be cancelled if he does not commence business within six months of the grant of registration or he is found to have obtained registration by means of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Case Title: Hyprecision Hydraulik versus State of Maharashtra & Ors.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that failure to furnish a declaration duly certified by the Octroi Inspector, would not render the importer ineligible for refund of Octroi Duty under Section 194(2) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act).

The Bench of Acting Chief Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Arif S. Doctor held that production of a duly certified octroi exemption form is not a substantive requirement but merely a procedural requirement to enable an eligible party to claim refund of Octroi under Section 194(2), on imports made in pursuance of a specified contract executed with the Government.

Case Title: Tvl.Marimuthu Venkateshwaran Versus The Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (mad) 494

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has lifted the cancellation of the GST registration as the tax returns were not filed by the taxpayer due to health-related issues.

The single bench of Justice Mohammed Shafiq, while considering the directions issued in the cases of Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others, has directed the department to revoke the cancellation of the GST registration.

The Madras High Court has quashed the order canceling GST registration without referring to the reason for the non-filing GSTR-3B return.

The single bench of Justice M. Sundar has remitted the matter back to the appellate authority with a directive to examine the matter on the merits based on available records and based on the opportunity already given to the writ petitioner/assessee under sub-section (8) of Section 107 of the CGST Act.

Case Title: N/s.Sayar Cars Versus The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT)

The Madras High Court has held that the assessment made to the best of the authority's judgement would not be sufficient for the imposition of penalty, as the degree of proof required for the imposition of penalty is much higher than that required for the purpose of framing a best judgement assessment.

Case Title: Ramki Cements Private Limited Versus The State Tax Officer

The Madras High Court has held that the show-cause notice issued to the driver of the consignment is not adequate.

The single bench of Justice S. Srimathy has quashed the demand for tax and penalty in Form GST MOV-09 and directed the department to issue a fresh notice.

Case Title: The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Versus M/s.Ganges International Private Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 382

The Madras High Court, consisting of Justice R. Ramdevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, has held that the assessee is entitled to avail cenvat credit of the service tax already paid but the assessee was unable to claim due to a transitional provision that has come into effect from 01.07.2017.

Case Title: India Yamaha Motor Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 384

The Madras High Court has ruled that interest on late GST remittances is levied even if credit in electronic cash or credit ledgers is available.

The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that unless an assessee actually files a return and debits the respective registers, the authorities cannot be expected to assume that available credits will be set-off against tax liability.

Case Title: TCI Freight Versus The Assistant Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 399

The Madras High Court has held that the transporter may seek release of only the conveyance upon satisfaction of the statutory conditions.

The division bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that the phrase 'person transporting the goods' in Sections 129(1) and (6) to mean the owner or his agent who has contracted to supply the goods, and not the transporter who will provide the carriage for the same. Both sub-Sections 129(1) and (6) use the phrase 'goods or conveyance' whereas the proviso extends the benefit of release, upon terms, to the transporter, but restricted to the conveyance alone.

Case Title: Nordex India Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 401

The Madras High Court has allowed the concessional customs duty benefit on goods used in the rotor of windmills for notional billing to customers.

The single bench of Justice M. Nirmal Kumar has observed that the imported rotor blades need no customization and mechanisation. Hence, raising an invoice in the name of the client after importing and transporting it to the customer's site is only a notional exercise. It cannot be said that the petitioner is not the importer and that he is the person who has used it for a specific purpose for which it was imported.

Case Title: M/s.D.K.Enterprises Versus The Assistant /Deputy Commissioner (ST)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 408

The Madras High Court has held that in the matters of interception, seizure, and detention, the GST Department did not recognise the concept of "working day" and "holiday" since substantial civil rights of the parties were at stake.

The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that neither the assessee nor the department could have the luxury of reference to a holiday to delay or protract the proceedings. The acts of interception and retention, though an invasion of the rights of citizens have been accorded statutory sanction in pursuance of the aims and objects of the Goods and Services Act. Thus, it was imperative that the intrusive acts be carried out in strict compliance with the statutory provisions.

Case Title: M.Mallika Mahal Versus The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 411

The Madras High Court has directed the GST department to take suitable steps by instructing GST Network, New Delhi to make suitable charges in the architecture of the GST Web Portal to allow the petitioners to file their returns and pay the tax/penalty/fine.

The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has noted that payment of tax, interest, fine/fee, etc. shall not be allowed to be made or adjusted from and out of any input tax credit which may be lying unutilized or unclaimed in the hands of these petitioners.

Case Title: White Cliffs Hair Studio Private Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 338

The Madras High Court has held that the primary activity is the manufacture of the wig, for which the central excise duty is remitted. The fitment of the wig, including the preparation of the scalp and optional maintenance of the wig itself, is incidental to the manufacturing and supply of the wig.

The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Imagic Creative Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The Supreme Court has specifically noted the difference between a composite contract and an indivisible one. A composite contract is one that would involve components of sale and service, whereas an indivisible contract, also involving components of sale and service, is one where the distinction between the two is very fine and difficult to determine.

Case Title: M/s. United Nilgiri Tea Estates Company Ltd. Versus The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 362

The Madras High Court bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has held that the cut and sized shade trees would constitute "agricultural produce" and, therefore, fall outside the purview of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (TNGST Act, 1959).

Case Title: M/s.Interplex Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 367

The Madras High Court has held that the timelines for uploading of TRAN 1 for seeking credit as well as seeking revision of the credit cannot be one and the same as it leads to an unworkable position.

The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that the time limit for revision of a TRAN-1 return be identical to the timeline for filing of a return seeking transition. The purpose of revision is to enable correction or modification of a return of transition. It would stand to reason that some additional time, over and above the timeline granted for a TRAN-1 return, be provided by the respondent in the latter instance.

​​Exporter Can't Be Deprived Of MEIS Benefits Due To Technical Error In Electronic System: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s Gupta Hair Products (P) Ltd. Versus The Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade

(Video) 100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2022 - PART-1

The Madras High Court has held that due to technical error or lacunae in the electronic system, the petitioner/exporter cannot be deprived of its benefit/incentive under the Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS).

The single bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose has directed the department to consider the petitioner's representation seeking to get the benefit under the MEIS for the subject shipping bill and pass orders within a period of six weeks.

Case Title: M/s.Anantham Retail Private Limited Versus State Tax Officer

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 283

Case Title: A. Irudayaraju Versus The State Tax Officer, Adjudication Cell

The Madras High Court has ordered the release of the vehicle as the department has failed to pass the detention order within the period as provided for under Section 129 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TNGST Act) and no show cause notice has been issued within the period of 7 days as set out under Section 129(3) of the TNGST Act.

The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that since the statutory show cause notice is to be issued within a period of 7 days from the date of interception, it becomes incumbent upon the authorities to pass an order of detention prior thereto.

GST Dept. To Consider Reply to SCN Sent By Assessee Through post and Not Portal: Madras High Court

Case Title: Asia (Chennai) Engineering Company Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 431

The Madras High Court has held that the GST Department should consider a reply to a show cause notice even if it is sent by the assessee through the post and not the portal.

While rejecting the objection of the department that the postal/physical reply to them shall not be considered, the single bench of Justice M. Nirmal Kumar has directed the department to give an opportunity for personal hearing to the petitioner, hear the objections, peruse the documents submitted and the explanations.

Case Title: M/s.Vadivel Pyrotech Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 438

The Madras High Court has held that ASMT 10 is mandatory before proceeding to issue GST DRC-01. Failure to issue ASMT 10 in respect of the discrepancies forming the subject matter in GST DRC-01 culminating in GST DRC-07 would vitiate the entire proceedings.

The single bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has observed that any proceeding in GST DRC-01A/1 culminating in an Order in GST DRC-07, if pursuant to scrutiny under Section 61 of the TNGST Act, ought to be preceded by the issuance of Form ASMT 10.

Case Title: M/s. Redington (India) Limited versus Principal Additional Director General

The Madras High Court has ruled that officers of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) are "Central Excise Officers" for the purpose of Rule 3 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 since they are vested with the powers of Central Excise Officers by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC).

The Single Bench of Justice C. Saravanan, while considering a bunch of writ petitions, held that that the definition of "Central Excise Officer" in Section 2(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 is expansive and that any person, including an officer of the State Government, who is invested by the CBEC with any of the powers of a Central Excise Officer under the Central Excise Act, is a "Central Excise Officer".

Case Title: The Assistant Commissioner of Customs - Imports, Custom House Versus M/s. Mahadev Enterprises

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 286

The Madras High Court bench of Justice S.S. Sundar and Justice S.Srimathy has allowed the re-exportation of betelnut products subject to the execution of a bond to cover the value of the goods.

Case Title: Sridhar Versus The Superintendent of GST

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 287

The Madras High Court has dismissed the petition alleging harassment by the GST department.

The single bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar has observed that the term "harassment" is so subjective that it cannot be encapsulated in an objective criterion. The petitioner, having given a complaint, is bound to cooperate with the police for an inquiry.

The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has quashed the non-speaking order rejecting the GST registration application.

The petitioner had made an application seeking registration in accordance with Section 22 read with Section 25 of the CGST Act and Rule 8 of the CGST Rules. The registration sought was in respect of a rice mandi. The receipt of the application was duly acknowledged and physical verification (pv) was also duly undertaken.

Case Title: M/s.Gharpure Engg. & Construction (Pvt) Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 324

The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anitha Sumnath has quashed the VAT assessment and directed the department to follow the procedure set out in the circular regarding the issue of mismatch.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Case Title: Commissioner of Commercial Tax Versus Tata Steel Limited

The Calcutta High Court has held that Tata Steel is entitled to the concessional rate of tax as they have fulfilled the conditions in Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act.

The division bench of Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya has observed that Tata Steel, as a purchasing dealer, has the capacity to maintain the claim for refund of the excess tax collected directly from them, and the writ petition is maintainable.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Case Title: Suraj Singh Vs. Assistant Commissioner

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin has held that an order passed without granting a personal hearing violates principles of natural justice.

Case Title: Ramesh Kumar Patodia versus Citi Bank Na and Ors.

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the interest component of the Equated Monthly Instalments (EMIs) of a loan advanced by a bank on a credit card is not exempt from IGST.

The Single Bench of Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya held that the services rendered by the bank by way of extending loans amounted to credit card services and hence, the interest component of the EMI of the said loan was interest involved in credit card services, which is excluded from the exemption conferred under Notification No. 9/2017 - Integrated Tax (Rate), dated June 28, 2017.

Case Title: Bisweswar Midhya, Proprietor of Midhya Construction Versus The Superintendent, CGST

The Calcutta High Court has held that if the registration of a dealer is cancelled, the dealer cannot carry on its business in the sense that no invoice can be raised by the dealer. This would ultimately impact the recovery of taxes.

The division bench of Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Prasenjit Biswas has held that the suspension of the appellant's registration should be revoked forthwith with a direction to the appropriate authority to issue a show cause notice within a time frame and take up the adjudication proceeding.

Case Title: Principal Commissioner Of Central Excise Versus M/s Himadri Speciality Chemical Ltd.

The Calcutta High Court has allowed the pharma company to avail CENVAT credit on sales promotion services.

The division bench of Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya has observed that the commission paid by the pharma company to the commission stockist is included in the assessable value of the goods on which excise duty has been paid by the respondent on the final products.

The court has noted that sales promotion would include services by way of the sale of goods on a commission basis.

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: M/s.Esveeaar Distilleries Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that 18% GST is payable on the manufacturing of alcohol for human consumption by way of job work.

The division bench of Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu has observed that alcoholic liquor is not considered a food. Services by way of job work in relation to the manufacture of alcoholic liquor for human consumption are not eligible for 5% GST.

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.

Case Title: M/S. Gandhar oil refinery (India) Limited v. Assistant commissioner of sales tax

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has relied on the notification dated 05.07.2022 and held that the period from 1st March, 2020 to 28th February, 2022, for the computation of the period of limitation for filing refund applications shall stand excluded.

The division bench of Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu has observed that the application for refund was not made beyond the period of limitation and remanded the matter back to the assessing authority for fresh consideration in accordance with the law.

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.

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.

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.

Case Title: Vasavi Wedding And Event Planners Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 95

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, while considering a petition challenging GST demand based on events posted on social media, held that information available on the social media platform of the petitioner shows that the event was conducted.

The division bench of Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao dismissed the petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority.

Tripura High Court

Case Title: Adwitiya Chakrabarti Versus Union of India

Dismissing a PIL seeking to declare the possession of undeclared exotic animals and birds as illegal under the Customs Act and the Wild Life (Protection) Act and prosecution of their owners, the Tripura High Court has said it cannot direct or expect the government to take such drastic measure in haste without assessment of the impact and in absence of a detailed study.

The division bench of Chief Justice Indrajit Mahanty and Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay noted that a large number of citizens across India own pets which may be exotic species and might have been purchased or procured from those involved in captive breeding.

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus M/s J.M.J. Essential Oil Company

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (HP) 18

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the cash sales accepted by the VAT department are not sufficient to hold that the cash sales were genuine.

The division bench of Justice Sabina and Justice Satyen Vaidya has held that the Assessing Officer was liable to independently look into the cash sales to come to a conclusion as to whether the said sales were genuine or not. The Assessing Officer, as well as the Appellate Authority, rightly gave the finding of fact that the cash sales put forth by the respondent were not genuine and that the respondent had introduced its unaccounted income in the garb of cash sales.

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Case Title: Deepak Kumar Versus State of Punjab

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the provisions of the VAT Act do not provide for the registration of the FIR, and since the VAT Act is a code in itself, the provisions of the IPC also cannot be invoked. Therefore, an FIR could not have been registered against a person who has allegedly evaded tax.

The single bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi has observed that there is no provision for the registration of an FIR in matters such as those of alleged tax evasion. The provisions of the act only provide for a mandatory penalty.

Case Title: Sham Lal Versus State of Haryana and others

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the service tax is not payable on the parking services for cycles and scooters.

Case Title: Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India and others

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a demand by the GST Department against Genpact India and held that subcontracting for a service is not an "intermediary" service.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

Case Title: M/s Usha Martin Limited Versus Additional Commissioner

The Jharkhand High Court has held that the initiation of proceedings by the department under section 73 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 for alleged contravention of the Central Excise Act (C.E.A.) and Finance Act against the petitioner in terms of Section 140 of the CGST Act for the transition of CENVAT Credit as being inadmissible under GST was beyond his jurisdiction.

Case Title: M/s RSB Transmissions (India) Limited Versus Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 92

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that any deposit in the electronic cash ledger prior to the due date for filing the GSTR 3B return does not amount to a discharge of the registered person's tax liability.

The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan observed that an electronic cash ledger is just an e-wallet where cash can be deposited at any time by creating the requisite challans. Since the amount is deposited in the electronic cash ledger, a registered assessor can claim its refund at any time.

Case Title: M/s. Om Prakash Store Versus The State of Jharkhand

The Jharkhand High Court has quashed the adjudication order and held that the notice issued under notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act, in the column of date, time and venue of personal hearing, was indicated by the respondents as "NA", which means not applicable.

The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that the adjudication order was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law. The order deserves to be quashed on the grounds of non-compliance with the statutory provisions of the JGST Act and for non-compliance with the principle of natural justice.

Case Title: Roushan Kumar Chouhan Versus Commissioner of State Tax

The Jharkhand High Court has held that the summary of show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 cannot substitute the requirement of a proper show cause notice under section 73(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.

The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that the levy of a penalty of 100% of tax dues reflected in the Summary of the Order contained in Form GST DRC-07 is in the teeth of the provisions of Section 73(9) of the CGST Act. As per Section 73(9), the Proper Officer while passing an adjudication order can levy a penalty up to 10% of the tax dues only.

Case Title: M/s. AMI Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 81

The Jharkhand High Court has held that no goods or conveyance shall be detained or seized without serving an order of detention or seizure on the person transporting the goods.

The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that the adjudication order and the appellate order both suffered from procedural infirmities and lacked proper opportunity for the person transporting to defend himself.

Case Title: Bluestar Malleable Pvt. Ltd. Versus The State of Jharkhand

The Jharkhand High Court has held that if any assessee disputes the liability of interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act, then the department has to follow the specific procedure as stipulated under Section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act.

The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that the department failed to follow the procedure as enshrined in Section 73 or 74 of the JGST Act.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Case Title: M/s. Juhi Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus The State of Jharkhand

The Jharkhand High Court held that the summary of show cause notice in Form DRC-01 is not a substitute for show cause notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act.

The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that though the petitioner submitted their concise reply, the respondent cannot take benefit of the action as a summary of show cause notice cannot be considered as a show cause notice as mandated under Section 74(1). It is well settled that there is no estoppel against statute, and a bonafide mistake or consent by the assessee cannot confer any jurisdiction upon the proper officer. The jurisdiction must flow from the statute itself. The rules of estoppel are the rules of equity, which have no role in matters of taxation.

Case Title: M/s Shyam Hardware Store Versus The State of Jharkhand

The Jharkhand High Court has held that the inspection report does not fulfil the ingredients of a proper show-cause notice; it amounts to a violation of principles of natural justice.

The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that the adjudication order is null and void in the eye of the law if it is passed without the issuance of proper show-cause notice.

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.

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.

Uttarakhand High Court

Case Title: Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Utt) 36

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that the amount paid under protest, towards interest, prior to the issuance of show cause shall be considered as pre-deposit while disposing of the application for a waiver under the 'Sabka Vikas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019' (SVLDR Scheme).

The single bench of Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra has observed that the statute does not make any distinction between the payment of taxes, interest thereon, or any penalty in the amount which has been deposited during enquiry, investigation, or audit shall be deducted while issuing the statement and shall be adjusted while calculating relief to the declarant.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Maharaja Cables (C/O Maxwell Logistic Pvt Ltd) Vs Commissioner (GST) State Tax Indore (M.P.)

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently quashed the penalty imposed under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 on a private company after the petitioner argued that the mistake while generating the e-way bill was an inadvertent human error.

The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Virendra Singh, while allowing the appeal, observed that the mistake in the e-way bill was bonafide. However, the court said the authorities will be at liberty to consider the case of the petitioner for the imposition of a minor penalty while treating the mistake in question to be a clerical mistake as per Circular dated 14.09.2018 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Case Title: Micro Systems And Services Sole Proprietorship Vs Union Of India

The Telangana High Court has held that refund of accumulated input tax credit (ITC) on account of inverted structure would be allowed if accumulation of ITC is on account of the rate of tax on output supply being less than the rate of tax on inputs (same goods) at the same point of time as per some concessional notification issued by the government providing for a lower rate of tax for some specified supplies subject to fulfilment of other conditions.

Case Title: M/s. Srico Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus Telangana State Authority for Advance Ruling

The Telangana High Court has held that the investigation post-filing of the application would not debar the applicant from seeking an advance ruling.

The division bench of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyana and Justice C.V.Bhaskar Reddy has observed that the word "proceedings" has neither been defined in Chapter XVII nor in the definition clause, i.e., in Section 2 of the CGST Act. The inquiry or investigation would not come within the ambit of the word "proceedings".

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case Title: M/s Daya Shanker Singh Versus State Of Madhya Pradesh

The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed the penalty for the expiry of e-way bill as the department failed to establish that there existed any element of evasion of tax, fraudulent intent or negligence on the part of the petitioner.

The division bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Prakash Chandra Gupta has observed that the delay of almost 4:30 hours before which the E-way Bill expired appears to be bona-fide and without establishing fraudulent intent and negligence on the part of the assessee, the notice/order imposing penalty could not have been passed.

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.

Case Title: M/s Ani Technologies Private Limited Versus State of Telangana

The Telangana High Court ruled that, while the department referred to Section12(9) of the IGST Act, the department erroneously recorded that, in the instance of an unregistered receiver, the place of supply should be the recipient's location. It prima facie appears to be in contravention of Section 12(9) of the IGST Act.

The division bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Surepalli Nanda said, "it is prima facie evident that if the passenger is not registered under GST and avails transportation service, by way of legal fiction, the place of supply would be the place where the passenger embarks or starts his journey."

Case Title: M/s. Sri Sri Engineering Works and others Versus The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Begumpet Division, Hyderabad, and others

The Telangana High Court has held that the Telangana Value Added Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 2017 is unconstitutional.

The division bench of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice P. Madhavi Devi has observed that the intention of Parliament in ushering in the GST regime through the Constitution Amendment Act, enactment of the CGST Act and simultaneous enactment of various State GST Acts by the State Legislatures was to avoid a multiplicity of taxes by subsuming those indirect taxes into a single tax called GST. However, the amendments brought in by the Second Amendment Act were wholly inconsistent with the scheme of the Constitution Amendment Act read with the CGST Act and the TGST Act.

Chandigarh High Court

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

Case Title: M/s Ultratech Cement Limited Versus State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: Writ Petition (T) No. 128 Of 2015

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the lease charges paid by the Railways Department are not subject to the levy of value-added tax (VAT).

The single bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy has observed that the right to use goods or the use of goods is not the relevant factor to justify the levy of taxes.

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

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.

Case Title: Md. Rajibul Islam Versus State of Assam

The Gauhati High Court has directed the release of seized betel nuts as the betel nuts are subject to speedy natural decay and their retention was not required for the purpose of investigation.

The single bench of Justice Robin Phukan has observed that from the date of seizure till date, more than 128 days have already elapsed. There was no allegation of theft in respect of the seized betel nuts. The petitioner has also produced a certificate issued by Gaon Burah and the Chairman of Zutovi Village in respect of purchasing betel nuts from their village.

Orissa High Court

Case Title: Durga Raman Patnaik Vs Additional Commissioner of GST

The Orissa High Court has held that the Appellate Authority should have borne in mind the predicament faced by taxpayers on the introduction of a new set of procedures by way of the promulgation of the CGST Act and rules and that time is required to be taken to get acquainted.

The division bench of Justice Jaswant Singh and Justice Murahari Sri Raman has observed that it preferred to exercise its writ jurisdiction to undo prejudice and injustice caused to the petitioner as the Appellate Tribunal has not yet been constituted as per Section 109 of the CGST Act. There was no alternative remedy available for the petitioner to question the veracity of the order passed in the first appeal.

Case Title: State of Odisha represented by Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack v. M/s. Geetashree Industries & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 119

The Orissa High Court has held that the approach which is employed to exempt a commodity from the purview of taxation is not the same which is used to bring a good under the umbrella of taxation.

While applying this principle, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held that 'Chuni' is different from 'Cattle feed' under entry 66 of para-I of the Schedule attached to theOdisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 ('OET Act') and thus, the former is not amenable to entry tax under the statute.

Case Title: Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. versus State of Odisha and Others

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 124

The Orissa High Court has held that a 12% sales tax is applicable on Robinson Barley and Purity Barley.

The division bench of Chief Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice R.K. Pattanaik has observed that if a customer went to a shop and asked for barley, such a customer would not be supplied with Robinson Barley or Purity Barley. Conversely, if the customer was to ask for Robinson Barley or Purity Barley, he would not be supplied with plain barley. The distinct commercial product "Robinson Barley" cannot be classified as "cereal".

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.

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.

Case Title: M/s Atlas PVC Pipes Limited Versus State of Orissa

The Orissa High Court has held that the non-submission of a certified copy of the GST order appealed against within 7 days is a mere technical defect.

The division bench of Justice Krushna Ram Mohapatra and Justice Murahari Shri Raman has observed that on the altar of default in compliance of a procedural requirement, the merit of the matter on appeal cannot be sacrificed.

​​Case Title: M/s. Patel Brothers & Co., Sambalpur v. State of Odisha

The Orissa High Court has held that 'bidi' comes under the purview of "tobacco and tobacco products" as provided under Entry 16, Part I of the Schedule to the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 ('OET Act'). A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik observed, "Although learned counsel for the Petitioner sought to contend that under Entry 31 'cigarette and lighter' is a separate item and therefore unless there is a separate entry for 'bidi' it would not be amenable to entry tax in terms of the OET Act, the Court is unable to agree with the above contention. The expression 'tobacco and tobacco products' is wide enough to include 'bidi'..."

Case Title: Vinod Kumar Versus Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST and others

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that the cancellation of GST registration affects the right to livelihood and the writ petition is maintainable.

The division bench headed by the Acting Chief Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Justice Ramesh Chandra Khulbe has observed that the appellant is denied his right to livelihood because of the cancellation of his GST Registration number. He has no remedy to appeal. It shall be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution as the right to livelihood springs from the right to life as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Jammu & Kashmir 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.

Case Title: Parveez Ahmad Baba Versus Union Territory of J&K and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 152

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that the GST Registration cannot be granted if the ownership of the business owner's premise is under dispute.

The single bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed that until the dispute is settled between the parties amicably or through intervention of the Court of competent jurisdiction, neither the designated authority under the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 shall issue the licence nor registration shall be accorded under the GST Act to either of the parties in respect of the premises "Samci Restaurant."

CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. Citibank N.A. Versus Commissioner of Customs

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has deleted the penalty under the Customs Act against CitiBank on the purchase of an ATM within India.

The two-member bench of Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and Sanjeev Shrivastava (Accountant Member) has observed that a transaction concerning the purchase of an item within India, which is unrelated to its importation and to the importer as the transaction is confined between the Appellant Citibank and Philips India, does not support the imposition of a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act against Citibank.

Case Title: M/s. Maa Foundry Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax

The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal of finished goods by the Appellant made in the Show Cause Notice was merely based on assumption and presumption.

The bench of P.K. Choudhary (a judicial member) has observed that the charge of clandestine clearance is a serious charge, and the onus to prove the same is on the department to adduce concrete and cogent evidence. In the absence of corroborative evidence, the charge of clandestine clearance cannot be leveled against the assessee.

Case Title: Shreno Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara-i

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has observed that excise duty is not payable on scrap, which is neither generated from the manufacturing process nor generated from the cenvatable input or capital goods.

Case Title: Atul Dhawan Versus Commissioner of Customs

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that the department bears the burden of proving that the goods are smuggled.

The bench of Anil Choudhary (a judicial member) has observed that the show cause notice is vague as the valuation of the goods has been done by the Revenue without any relied-upon documents, i.e., copy of any retrieved documents from the mobile/CPU of the appellant/assessee.

Case Title: M/s.Nitin Industries (Trade Name) Versus Commissioner of Goods & Service Tax

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has observed that the credit has been accumulated due to the clearance of excisable goods during the Excise Law Regime for export and that the bar of unjust enrichment is not attracted.

The bench of Anil Choudhary (a Judicial Member) found that the appellant had not begun production or manufacturing activities, nor had any taxable goods been cleared, on or after 1.7.2017. The debit recorded by the appellant in the electronic ledger (DRC-3) amounts to a reversal of credit transferred to the GST regime. The appellant is entitled to a refund under the provisions of Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, which provides that the assessee can file a refund claim on or after the appointed day for a refund of any amount of credit, duty, etc. paid under the existing law (Central Excise/Service Tax), subject to clearing the bar of unjust enrichment.

Case Title: Bathinda Industrial Gas Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that freight charges are not deductible from the assessable value of liquid CO2, despite the fact that they were separately charged in the invoices and the gas was sold at the time of clearance from the appellant's factory.

The two-member bench of Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P. Venkata Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the authorities below are held to have wrongly confirmed the duty demand against the appellant on the basis of the inclusion of freight charges in the assessable value.

Case Title: Virgo Suitings Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the customs duty refund claim paid through the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) scrip.

The bench of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) has observed that the department has failed to establish through any kind of document or case law that debit of any amount under the DEPB scheme is not a mode of payment of duty, and therefore the benefit cannot be denied to the appellant.

Case Title: M/s Surya Jyoti Global Logistics, Customs Broker Versus Commissioner of Customs

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the customs broker is not required to obtain any "recommendation" or a certificate from any officer that the exporter is "bonafide."

Case Title: M/s. Raheja Regency Cooperative Housing Society ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is not applicable to refund claims for service tax paid under a mistake of law.

The bench of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) has observed that the appellant cannot be said to be liable to pay service tax in any way because what was paid by the appellant was not tax as defined by the Finance Act of 1994. As a result, the amount paid by the appellant does not have the character of a tax but is simply an amount paid due to a mistake of law.

Case Title: Chhaya Mahalley Versus Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & CGST

Case Title: Matta Paints And Hardware Store Versus The Commissioner

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has observed that the amount seized in cash by the authorities is to be refunded along with the interest.

The bench of Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) has observed that the appellant is entitled to a refund of interest on the principal amount at the rate of 12% from the date of its seizure.

Case Title: Reliance Jamnagar Infrastructure Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service tax refunds on trenching pipelines installed partly in SEZ and partly outside but for use in the operation of the SEZ are admissible.

The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that the construction service received in relation to trenching and pipeline construction was exclusively for SEZ only. A part of the same will be outside the premises of the SEZ, but that does not mean that service was received for anything other than authorised operations in the SEZ.

Case Title: J M Huber India Pvt Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Surat-ii

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that no service tax is demandable when the commission received is in convertible foreign exchange.

The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that the commission agent service provided to a foreign-based entity for promoting or marketing their goods in India constitutes an export of services, given that the Indian agent's activity includes providing promotion or marketing, technical support, installation, commission, etc. for the sale of goods by foreign-based entities in India on a commission basis.

​​Charge Of Double Benefit Sustains Only If Assessee Claims Refund, Utilises It For Paying Excise Duty: CESTAT

Case Title: Bright Engineering Works Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Daman

The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad Bench has ruled that the charge of double benefit is only valid when the assessee claims a refund and uses it to pay excise duty.

The bench of Ramesh Nair (a judicial member) has observed that it set aside the order passed by the Revenue Department rejecting the refund application of the assessee. The refund cannot be denied on the basis of the Appellant receiving a double benefit as a result of the non-transfer of unutilized CENVAT credit.

Case Title: Vriddheshwar SSK Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of CGST & C.Ex

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the cenvat credit on parts for the efficient functioning of machines for manufacturing.

The bench of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) has observed that the appellant is justified in availing the Cenvat credit on various items, namely, S.S. Welding Tube, Steel, Tubes, Alloy Steel Pipe, Prime HR Steel Coil, M.S. Wire, M.S. Slate, S.S. Welded Tube, HR Steel Pipe, and Link Outer, which are used in those machines that are manufacturing the final product.

Case Title: M/s. Diamond Beverages Private Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST & CX, Kolkata South Commissionerate

The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the cenvat credit on group mediclaim policy cannot be disallowed.

The two-member bench of P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) has observed that the insurance policy was taken by the Appellant for its factory employees. The appellant is registered under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 as well as the Factories Act, 1948, which mandates insurance policies to be obtained by the appellant.

Case Title: M/s BBM Impex Pvt. Limited Versus Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)

The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the 12% interest on custom duty refund from the deposit date to the refund date.

The bench of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) has observed that the amount of deposit made during investigation or audit becomes pre-deposit ipso facto upon contest of the dispute or filing of the appeal, and the assessee is entitled to interest as per law from the date of deposit till the date of refund.

Case Title: M/s. Shree Hari Sponge Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar-II

The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the onus to prove a charge of clandestine clearance of goods lies with the department.

The two-member bench, P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member), have held that the charge of clandestine clearance of goods is a serious charge and cannot be made on presumptions and assumptions.

Case Title: M/s. Uniglobal Paper Private Limited versus Commissioner of CGST & CX, Haldia Commissionerate

The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that Paper Cess is not includible in the calculation of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess.

The Bench of P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) held that though Cess on Paper is an excise duty, however, it is levied under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, and not under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Case Title: Sky Airways Versus Commissioner of Customs,(Appeals)

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the amount deposited voluntarily during an investigation cannot be treated as an amount towards the pre-deposit as it was not an amount deposited at the time of the filing of the appeal.

The two-member bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the appellant/assessee could not have asked for the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant voluntarily during investigation, which amount had been confirmed and appropriated by the order before the Tribunal in the earlier round of proceedings.

Case Title: Commissioner of Customs (Air) Chennai – VII Commissionerate Versus M/s. Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd.

The Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that imported WAP is entitled to an exemption from the whole of the customs duties under the ITA.

The two-member bench of Justice Dilip Kumar (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that imported WAP is a networking equipment working on LAN, connecting Wi-fi enabled devices such as laptops, smartphones, tablets, etc. to a wired network.

Case Title: M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Refinery Division Versus Commissioner of CGST & CX

The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the cenvat credit to Indian Oil on excise duty paid towards manufacturing activity.

The bench of P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) has observed that once duty is paid by the assessee, treating the activity as manufacturing activity by the Department, Cenvat credit is available and there is no question of denial of Cenvat credit.

Case Title: Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Central Excise Building, Visakhapatnam

The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has quashed the demand of excise duty against Hindustan Petroleum and held that losses of up to 1% can be allowed without detailed scrutiny.

The two-member bench headed by Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that there was no allegation, let alone evidence, that the losses were not genuine or that the products were suspected to have been diverted or pilfered.

Case Title: M/s BenQ India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Additional Director General (Adjudication)

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the import of colour data projectors is exempted from basic customs duty.

The two-member bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that for the period prior to 01.01.2017, all goods falling under CTSH 8528 41, 8528 51, or 8528 61 were unconditionally exempted from payment of Basic Customs Duty under Serial No. 17 of the exemption notification. Post 01.01.2017, Serial No. 17 of the notification exempts all goods falling under CTSH 8528 42, 8528 52, or 8528 62 if they are of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data processing machine of heading 8471. The goods imported by the appellant satisfy the description of the goods in the exemption notification for both periods and are, therefore, eligible for exemption.

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

The Chattisgarh Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), consisting of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member), has held that the service tax exemption is available on the transmission of electricity.

Case Title: M/s. Selling Simplified India Private Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST, East Delhi

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the registration of premises is a necessary prerequisite for claiming a refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

The bench of Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) has observed that service providers are entitled to a refund under rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 when the output service is exported.

Case Title: M/s Vodafone Mobile Services Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Vodafone is entitled to claim CENVAT credit on tower/tower material and pre-fabricated buildings/shelters.

The two-member bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that Vodafone was entitled to take CENVAT credit since the items in dispute were "capital goods".

Case Title: eClerx Services Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST &Central Excise

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has quashed the service tax demand and held that the exemption afforded by section 26 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 is overriding in nature and the breach of conditions is procedural.

The two-member bench of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and C.J. Mathew (Technical Member) has held that the required documentation was not available for the entire period of the dispute but, at the same time, it cannot be denied that at some point, the eligibility did exist. The procedural infirmities, for a shorter or longer time, do not in any way supplant the exemption accorded to the supply of services.

Case Title: Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-29, Kolkata Versus Shri Pradip Mullick

The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that AO treated the sundry creditors as bogus at the instance of the report of the inspector for a few sample cases was based on AO's personal belief and not by virtue of any concrete facts and evidence placed on record.

The two-member bench of Rajpal Yadav (Vice-President) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member) has observed that the conclusion of the AO was based on imagination and directed to delete the addition.

Case Title: M/s. Enzen Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd. versus ITO

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has reiterated that premium on redemption of preference shares is exigible to tax under the head 'Income from Capital Gains', liable to tax to the extent actually received on the redemption of shares.

The Bench of N.V. Vasudevan (Vice President) and Padmavathy S (Accountant Member) held that the revenue authorities cannot disregard the legal effect of issue of cumulative preference shares, and that they cannot ignore the legal consequences of a document by characterizing a share as a debt instrument.

Case Title: China Steel Corporation India Pvt Ltd Versus C.C.-Ahmedabad

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) should be refunded without filing a refund claim.

The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that if and when the refund claim of EDD is filed by the appellant, it cannot be barred by limitation.

Case Title: M/s Sconce Global Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Service Tax

The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has observed that the "Pandal and Shamiana" services could not have been charged with service tax before 01.06.2007.

The two-member bench headed by Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the appellant's contract involved provisions of services as well as supply/deemed supply of goods and they can only be classified under the head "works contract services".

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) bench of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) has deleted the penalty on the grounds that there was no deliberate non-compliance in depositing service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM).

Case Title: Forward Resource 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 demand is not sustainable on the basis of TDS/26AS statements.

The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that the value of taxable services cannot be determined only based on TDS statements produced by clients. The expenditures are booked based on when the form 26AS is filed, which cannot be considered as the value of taxable services for the purpose of demand of service tax.

Case Title: M/s Jindal Tubular (India) Limited Versus The Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax & Central Excise, Ujjain

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has quashed the service tax demand and penalty and held that the freight charges incurred for transportation of goods from the place of removal to the buyer's premises cannot be included in the assessable value.

The two-member bench headed by Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the "place of removal" continues to be the seller's premises, whether it be the factory gate or depot or any other place relatable to the seller. In terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, the value of the goods is the transaction value of the goods for delivery at the time and place of removal.

Case Title: M/s Global Logic India Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax

The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the CENVAT credit on service tax paid on input services received by the SEZ unit.

The two-member bench headed by Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that the assessee could forego exemption and claim the benefit of the CENVAT credit on the amount of service tax paid on input services as would have been available as a refund to an SEZ Unit.

Case Title: Commissioner of Customs-Mumbai (Air Cargo Import) Versus Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd.

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has granted the customs duty exemption to Reliance Jio Infocomm and held that the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) is classifiable as part of telecom equipment.

The two-member bench of S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has observed that the SFP is part of the I/O card module of the Ethernet switch apparatus, which can function only when connected with an Ethernet switch providing an interface between two domains, i.e., electrical and optical. As such, they are considered parts and are correctly classifiable under CTH 8517 7090 of the Customs Tariff.

Case Title: M/s Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar

The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the activity of a mediator cannot fall under business consultant services.

The two-member bench of P. K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has observed that the appellants/assessee are not liable to pay any service tax on the reverse mechanism on the services rendered by the mediator.

Case Title: Jeen Bhavani International Versus Commissioner of Customs-Nhava Sheva-III

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the contents of the retracted statement cannot simply be brushed aside to conclude that the assessee/appellant has indulged in the activity of undervaluation of goods.

The two-member bench of S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has observed 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.

Case Title: Larsen Tourbro Limited Versus C.C.-AHMEDABAD

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the spare parts supplied for warships are exempt from customs duty.

The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that the interceptor boat supplied by the appellant was a warship. The intercepted boats used by the Coast Guard Ministry of Defence Government of India are only for the security of the coastal border of the country and the boats are not used for any other purpose. The interceptor boats are equipped with arms and ammunition. Therefore, it is absolutely without any doubt that the interceptor boat is a warship.

Case Title: M/s. Jai Balaji Industries Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata

The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the customs duty exemption on refractories meant for re-lining of furnaces.

The two-member bench of P.K. Chaudhary (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has observed that refractories meant for re-lining of furnaces, i.e., for replacement, are covered by the "means" part of the definition of "capital goods". It is in any way restricted or controlled by the use of the expression "refractories for initial lining'' used in the inclusive part of the definition of "capital goods".

Case Title: Dow Chemical International Pvt Ltd Versus C.C.E.-Kutch (gandhidham)

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the job worker has carried out all the activities which, as per the department, amount to manufacturing. The job worker is alone to pay the excise duty.

The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that irrespective of the ownership of goods, whoever undertakes the manufacturing activity has to pay the duty.

Case Title: M/s. Visa Resources India Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST & CX

The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has observed that the Cenvat credit of Service Tax can be availed on debit notes under the scheme of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

The bench of P.K. Chaudhary (Judicial Member) has observed that an invoice issued by a provider of input service is a valid document for availment of Cenvat credit. The heading of the document, as seen from sample copies attached with the appeal paper book, though they are nomenclature as debit notes, contains all the disclosures as required in a tax invoice as per Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994.

Case Title: M/s. BlackRock Services India Private Limited versus Commissioner of CGST

The Chandigarh Bench of CESTAT has ruled that the services provided by BlackRock India, relating to development of interface for an operating system for investment managers, is not an intermediary service.

The Bench of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) held that the 'Business Support Services' rendered by BlackRock to its US based clients would qualify as an export of service in terms of Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994, and thus, BlackRock was eligible for refund of un-utilised CENVAT credit availed on the input services used in providing the said business support services.

Case Title: M/s. Johnson Matthey Chemical India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner CGST

The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a mandatory deposit under section 35F of the Excise Act cannot be made by way of debit in the Electronic Credit Ledger maintained under the CGST Act.

The two-member bench headed by Dilip Gupta (President) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has observed that as per the provisions of section 41 of the CGST Act, credit lying in the electronic credit ledger can be utilised only for self-assessed output tax.

Case Title: Girish Kumar Singh Versus Commissioner Of Customs

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a penalty cannot be imposed for introducing the importer to the Importer-Exporter Code (IEC) holder.

The bench of Anil Chaudhary (Judicial Member) has observed that no penalty can be imposed without proving the role of the person being charged.

Case Title: Cadila Healthcare Ltd. versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara-I

The Ahmedabad Bench of CESTAT has ruled that empty packaging material of cenvatable input is not liable for payment either as excise duty or as CENVAT credit under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

The Single Bench of Judicial Member Ramesh Nair held that the assessee was not liable to pay any amount on the clearance of the said empty drums.

Case Title: M/s T.S. Motors India Private Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Lucknow

The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that even when an assessee has suppressed facts, the extended period of limitation can be evoked only when "suppression" is shown to be wilful with intent to evade the payment of service tax.

The two-member bench headed by Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that the show cause notice merely mentions that the appellant suppressed the value of taxable service. The show cause notice does not mention that the suppression was with the intention of evading payment of service tax.

Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T.

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the limitation period is not applicable on personal ledger accounts (PLA).

The bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) has observed that in the case of PLA balance, it is not deposited as a duty but it is deposited as an advance towards the duty. The PLA amount takes the colour of excise duty only when it is utilised for payment of duty on clearance of excisable goods. The unspent balance of the PLA is only an advance, not a duty. Therefore, Section 11B is not applicable.

Case Title: Janki Dass Rice Mills Versus C.C.-Mundra

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that the exporter is not responsible for the instructions given by the importer regarding the change in the port after the issuance of a "Let Export Order" by the customs authority.

The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that the appellant lost the ownership of the goods as soon as the "let export order" was issued by the Customs authorities. After the export order, it was the responsibility of the shipping lines to ship the goods to the foreign buyer, with the exporter having no control over the goods. Hence, the appellant cannot be held responsible if the importer situated in Iran had given instruction to change the port from Bandar Abbas port to Jabel Ali port. After the "let export order" was issued by the Customs authorities, it was the importer in Iran who became the owner of the goods.

Case Title: Candila Healthcare Ltd. 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) has held that empty packaging material of cenvatable input is not liable for payment either as excise duty or as cenvat credit under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Case Title: NITCO Limited Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-DAMAN

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) has held that the C & F Agent Service is an admissible input service in the terms of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Case Title: M/s. Geodis Overseas Private Limited Versus The Commissioner of 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 ocean freight charges collected from customers are not subject to the levy of Service Tax under Business Support Services.

Case Title: M/s Shiv Naresh Sports Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner, Service Tax, Delhi

The CESTAT Delhi has ruled that an activity undertaken in a stadium, which belongs to the Government and which is used for non-commercial activities, would not be covered under the definition of 'Commercial or Industrial Construction' services, as defined in Section 65 (25b) of the Finance Act, 1994, and hence, it would not attract service tax.

The Bench, consisting of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Mr. Raju (Technical Member), held that the activity of laying Synthetic Athletic Track Surface is of a civil nature and therefore, it would fall within the definition of commercial or industrial construction services; however, since the same was provided in respect of a sport facilities owned by the Government, the same would not be chargeable to service tax.

Case Title: M/s. ITCO Industries Ltd. versus The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

The Chennai Bench of CESTAT has allowed credit of CVD and SAD paid after 30.06.2017 for the imports made prior to 30.06.2017, i.e., prior to the GST regime, under the advance authorisation scheme.

The Single Bench of Judicial Member Ms. Sulekha Beevi held that credit of CVD and SAD paid by the importer could not be denied on the ground that the duties were paid by the appellant only after an intimation letter was issued to it. The CESTAT observed that the said intimation letter had not been issued by invoking any provisions of the Customs law or Excise law.

Case Title: M/s K K Spun India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Customs and Service Tax, Indore

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), consisting of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member), has allowed the cenvat credit on the capital goods, as their finished goods falling under CTH 68109990 are dutiable under the Central Excise Tariff Act.

Case Title: M/s Leather Sellers Versus Commissioner of Customs And Excise, Patparganj

The Delhi Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the amount was lying in the nature of the pre-deposit with the department from the date of encashment of the bank guarantee.

The bench of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) has observed that the appellant is entitled to 12% interest from the date of encashment of the bank guarantee under Section 129EE of the Customs Act.

Case Title: M/s Amba River Coke Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the benefit of exemption from payment of countervailing duty (CVD) on the grounds that the process of crushing and screening of iron ore is classified as iron ore fines.

The two-member bench headed by Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and C.J. Mathew (Technical Member) has held that iron ore concentrate refers to an ore that has been subjected to special processes for removal of all or part of the foreign matter, i.e., gangue contained in the ore, with which it naturally occurs.

Case Title: M/s Star CHA Management Services LLP Versus Commissioner of Customs, (Airport & General)

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has quashed the order of forfeiture of security deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs but sustained the penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the Customs Broker.

The two-member bench headed by Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that the forfeiture of security deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 50,000 under Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2018 is excessive.

Case Title: Commissioner of Central Excise And Customs, Central Goods And Service Tax Versus M/s Shree Cement Ltd

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has allowed the Cenvat credit of 2% CVD paid on the import of steam coal.

Case Title: M/s Anglo Eastern Maritime Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST

The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) has held that a seafarer's recruitment service provider, who processes the entire selection, medical test, insurance, transportation, training, etc. to the overseas client and receives convertible foreign exchange, is not an intermediary.

Case Title: M/s. VITP Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad-IV

The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the service tax is not applicable on reimbursement of expenses from its customers on account of water, electricity, and diesel expenses incurred for the provision of services.

The two-member bench of P.K. Chaudhary (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that cenvat credit can be availed on work contract services and other services for the construction of immovable property. The Cenvat credit can be availed for event management services for the promotion of business.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

(Video) 🎓2022 Important Supreme Court Judgments - Part 1 | Supreme Court Cases | ALR

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

Case Title: M/s. J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Central Goods & Service Tax

Citation: Excise Appeal No.51255 Of 2019

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the Clean Energy Cess has been imposed for the collection of cess on polluting fossil fuels so as to create additional funds for taking measures to reduce carbon emissions and pollution.

The two-member bench of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that under the Clean Energy Cess Rules, the cess has to be deposited through cash/PLA and cannot be deposited through debit to a cenvat credit account.

Case Title: Reliance Industries Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Reliance Industries Ltd. was ineligible for a refund of amounts that had, inadvertently, been reversed in the CENVAT credit account under rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 between April 2010 and March 2011.

The two-member bench of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and C.J. Mathew (Accountant Member) has observed that Reliance Industries has not used any incremental input and input services for the manufacture of an exempted quantity of LPG and the entire quantum of inputs and input services was required for the manufacture of dutiable finished goods.

Case Title: Desai and Diwanji Versus Commissioner of CGST

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the assessee is eligible for CENVAT Credit on service tax paid by registered premises even if invoices raised are in the name of an unregistered branch office.

The single bench of Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) has observed that in the event of centralised billing and centralised accounting systems, when one registration is permissible under Section 4(2), discharging Service Tax liability from the registered premises would not disentitle the benefits of CENVAT Credit on the Service Tax paid by the service provider if invoices are raised in the name of branch offices, even if the said branch offices are unregistered, since Service Tax liability has been discharged by the main office also for services provided by the branches.

Case Title: M/s Raghuveer Rolling Mills Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur

The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the allegation of clandestine removal is merely based on the entries in diaries, etc. is not sustainable.

The bench of P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has observed that the department has not adduced any additional evidence, even on a sample basis, to substantiate the allegation of clandestine removal.

Case Title: Commissioner of Central Excise Versus Macro Media Digital Imaging Pvt. Ltd.

The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the service tax is not payable on the activity of printing advertisement content on PVC material.

The two-member bench headed by Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the activity of printing advertisement content on PVC material which results in printed PVC flex or PVC board would amount to manufacture.

Case Title: Satyam Computer Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Tax

The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), comprised of two members Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) and P. Venkata Subba Rao (Technical Member), has granted Satyam Computer a cenvat credit for service tax paid on insurance premiums for employees and their families.

Case Title: Metal Gems Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Daman

The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that charges of clandestine removal cannot be confirmed on the basis of private records, the authenticity of which was doubted by the manufacturer without any corroborative evidence.

The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that the onus to establish clandestine activities, resulting in confirmation of demand is placed heavily on the Revenue and is required to be discharged by the production of sufficient evidence.

Case Title: M/s Universal Industries Versus Commissioner, CGST- Dehradun

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the service tax demand is not sustainable as the appellant has purchased fertilisers, which are their inputs, at cost, insurance, and freight (CIF) value, which includes the ocean freight element.

The appellant has paid custom duty on CIF value, which includes ocean freight, according to the single bench of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member). Thus, there can be no demand for service tax on the purchase price of goods, even under the reverse charge mechanism.

Case Title: M/s Manikgarh Cement Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur

Citation: Excise Appeal No. 87998 of 2019

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) has allowed the CENVAT Credit on Welding Electrodes and Dissolved Acetylene Gas (D.A. Gas) as inputs in the Cement Manufacturing Process.

Case Title: Commissioner of Central Excise And Central Goods And Service Tax Versus M/s Hathway Sukhamrit Cable & Datacom Pvt. Ltd.

The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Multi System Operators (MSOs) are liable to pay service tax for providing cable operator services to Local Cable Operators (LCOs).

The two-member bench of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Accountant Member) has observed that owing to the business model of the cable operator industry, the MSO is providing cable operator services to LCOs and not to ultimate consumers, and hence the MSO would be liable to pay service tax only on the amount received from LCOs. The LCOs will be separately liable for discharging service tax on the gross amount received from the ultimate customers for the service provided by the LCO to them.

Case Title: M/S. Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Limited Versus C.C.-JAMNAGAR (PREV)

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has been ordered by the Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) to consider issuing guidelines or procedures for handling cases before the CESTAT in which an IBC proceeding has been brought against the assessee's company.

Case Title: M/s Mahavir Transmission Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax, Dehradun

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the refund of unutilised cenvat credit of education cess and secondary and higher education cess for payment of output tax.

The bench of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) has relied on the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, CGST and held an assessee is entitled to a refund of unutilized cess under the existing law, lying in credit as on 30/06/2017.

Case Title: M/s.Sakthi Sugars Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has deleted the penalty imposed with regard to credit availed in respect of input services used in the co-generation plant for the generation of electricity sold outside.

The bench of Sulekha Beevi C.S. (Judicial Member) has upheld a penalty imposed with regard to an input service tax credit on the services used in the manufacture of ethyl alcohol.

Case Title: Jay Gurudev Construction Co Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that the benefit of abatement notification cannot be denied solely because of a difference in the amount of purchase shown in the profit and loss account and invoices.

Case Title: Advance Computer Education Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Ahmedabad

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service tax is payable on computer education services under vocational training.

The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that the computer education service has been excluded from the Vocational Training service by Notification No. 19/2005-ST dated 07.06.2005. The period involved was from 21.06.2006 to 30.11.2009. Therefore, the appellant is not eligible for exemption under vocational training.

Case Title: Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar-I Versus

The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the job of bottling, blending and labelling Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) does not amount to taxable service under "Business Auxiliary Service".

Case Title: M J Gold Pvt. Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import)

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that denying the benefit of customs duty exemption despite the valid country of origin certificate is not sustainable.

Case Title: Manikgarh Cement Versus Commissioner of Central Excise

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that characteristics of "consumables" do not attach to "welding electrodes", and, therefore, the recovery of the Modified Value Added Tax (MODVAT) credit was incorrect.

Case Title: Patidar Products Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Bhavnagar

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the seized currency during the course of an investigation cannot be confiscated without proving that the said seized currency is the sale proceeds of excisable goods cleared clandestinely.

Case Title: Sham Lal Versus State of Haryana and others

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the service tax is not payable on the parking services for cycles and scooters.

Case Title: Dinesh Chandra Dubey Versus & Service Tax, Excise and Customs

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has deleted the penalty and held that the service provider receiving a commission in lieu of providing "business auxiliary services" from Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society did not have a mala fide intention to evade service tax.

Case Title: Nai Dunia Media Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service tax is not payable on the amount received as facility charges as it was wholly attributable to electricity expenses, which have been shared proportionately by the assessee and its sister concerns.

Case Title: Meghmani Organics Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Surat-ii

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has upheld the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, on the ground of intentional short payment of excise duty.

Case Title: Bajaj Herbals Private Ltd Versus C.C.E. Ahmedabad-II

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Bajaj Herbals was eligible for remission of duty on the finished goods destroyed in the fire incident.

Case Title: IPCA Laboratories Ltd. Versus C.C.E

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that excise duty cannot be demanded on semi-finished goods or work in process lying at the time of debonding of 100% Export Oriented Units (EOU).

Case Title: M/s. Arkkays National Engineering & Foundry Co. Versus The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that cenvat credit cannot be denied on the grounds of non-registration of input service distributor registration in respect of bank charges and chartered accountant services.

Case Title: M/s Nidhi Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Customs, (Export), New Delhi

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has found that the appellant has not paid duty to the government exchequer but instead paid a percentage of the amount equivalent to the duty to the firms for making forged licences to clear the bills of entry.

Case Title: M/s. Max Life Insurance Company India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service tax is leviable on policy administration charges with effect from 01.05.2011.

The two-member bench of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that in view of the clarification by the Board in TRU Circular dated 26.02.2010, 2010, policy administration charges are chargeable to tax under Section 65 (105) (zx). Thus, the department cannot be permitted to take a U-turn in light of the board's circular. Board circulars are binding on the officers of the department.

Case Title: Reliance Industries Ltd. versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara-ii

The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that Reliance Industries is entitled to interest on delay in refund of excess reversal of CENVAT credit.

The bench of Judicial Member Ramesh Nair dismissed the contention of the revenue department that since the assessee- Reliance Industries, was entitled to adjust the excess amount by taking credit suo moto under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which it had failed to do so, it was not entitled to interest.

Case Title: M/s TDK India Private Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST & Excise, Kolkata North

The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), consisting of P.K. Chaudhary (Judicial Member), has held that the notification levying service tax under the reverse charge mechanism (RCM) for works contract service shall be applicable only to individuals, partnership firms, and Hindu Undivided Families (HUF), and not to corporate assessees.

Case Title: Perfect Ready Mix Concrete Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Vadodara

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the entire exercise is the sale of ready-mixed concrete (RMC) and there is no service element involved so as to create service tax liability against the assessee.

The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (judicial member) and Raju (technical member) has observed that the department has very much accepted the activity of the appellant as manufacturing and collected the excise duty on the entire value of RMC, which includes the pumping and laying of RMC at the site. As a result, the department cannot take two positions: one supporting the manufacturer's demand for excise duty while also demanding service tax under the Works Contract Act.

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

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service tax is not payable on security deposits taken from customers towards the trading of shares.

Case Title: Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & ST

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the payment of a one-time premium or salami cannot be charged to service tax under the heading "renting of immovable property service."

The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (judicial member) and Raju (technical member) has observed that service tax under Section 65(105)(zzzz) read with Section 65(90a) cannot be charged on the "premium" or "salami" paid by the lessee to the lessor for transfer of an interest in the property from the lessor to the lessee as the amount is not for the continued enjoyment of the property leased.

Case Title: Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. versus Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import)

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has reiterated that import of external/portable hard disk drives are eligible for concessional rate of additional customs duty, as provided under Notification No. 6/2006-CE, dated 1st March 2006, and Notification No. 12/2012-CE, dated 17th March 2012.

Case Title: M/s Lakshya Education Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) is not empowered to modify the scope of an exemption notification that the Central Government has issued.

AAAR

Appellant's Name: M/s HYT Engineering Company Private Limited

The Uttar Pradesh Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) has held that the setting up of an Electric Loco Shed for the Railway constitutes a composite supply of work contract service.

The two-member bench of S. Kannan and Ministhy S. has observed that the project of setting up an electric loco shed at Saiyedpur Bhitri, Uttar Pradesh, fulfils the conditions of it being an immovable property.

Appellant's Name: M/s. Shalby Limited

The Gujarat Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) declared the AAR ruling void as the appellant had withheld information regarding the commencement of an investigation against them on the issue raised by them in the application for an advance ruling.

Applicant's Name: M/s. Achampet Solar Private Limited

The Telangana Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) has held that liquidated damages recoverable by the applicant from Bi-electric India on account of delay in commissioning do not qualify as a "supply" and no GST is payable.

Appellant's Name: M/s. Mahavir Nagar Shiv Shrushti Co-op. Housing

The Maharashtra Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) has ruled that the housing society is ineligible to claim input tax credit (ITC) on contract services received from their appointed contractor due to the housing society's ineligibility to claim ITC on repairs, renovations, and rehabilitation works.

The two-member bench of Ashok Kumar Mehta and Rajeev Kumar Mital has observed that the society itself is not a work contract service provider, nor is it in the business of providing work contract services. The contract services received by society from appointed contractors are for the common benefit of the members.

Appellant: M/s. Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply And Sewerage Board

The Telangana Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) has ruled that no GST exemption is available on medical insurance premiums taken to provide health insurance to employees, pensioners, and their family members.

The two-member bench of Neetu Prasad and B.V. Siva Naga Kumari has observed that the insurance services for employees and employees' family members received by the appellant are not in direct and proximate relation to the water supply and sewerage-related functions entrusted under Article 243W of the Constitution of India, hence the supplies received by the appellant are not exempted from GST.

Applicant's Name: M/s. Magnetic Infotech Pvt Ltd

The Telangana Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) has ruled that there is no GST exemption on sub-contract services to educational boards.

The two-member bench of B.V. Sivanaga and Neetu Prasad has observed that the exemption would be available when the services are provided "to" an educational institution for services relating to admission to or the conduct of examination by the institution.

Appellants Name: M/s Vadilal Industries Ltd.

The Gujarat Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR), while upholding the ruling of AAR, has held that 18% GST is applicable on parathas.

The two-member bench of Vivek Ranjan and Milind Torawane has observed that the parathas are different from plain chapatti or roti and cannot be treated as or covered under the category of plain chapatti or roti. The appropriate classification of parathas would be under Chapter Heading 2106.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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%.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

Appellant's Name: KPH Dream Cricket Private Limited

The Punjab Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR)has ruled that the GST is payable on the activity of providing free complimentary cricket match tickets. However, where complimentary tickets are being provided by the appellant to a related person or a distinct person, it shall fall within the ambit of supply on account of Schedule I and the appellant would be liable to pay tax.

The bench of Aruna Narayan Gupta and Kamal Kishor Yadav has observed that the appellant would not be eligible to avail input tax credit in relation to the activity of providing free complimentary cricket match tickets. However, if an activity or transaction is treated as a supply because it is provided by the appellant to a related or distinct person, the appellant is entitled to the input tax credit.

Applicant's Name: Deepak & Co.

The Delhi Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) has ruled that the GST rate on the supply of food and drinks, whether in trains or at platforms (static units), will attract 5% GST without an Input Tax Credit (ITC).

The two-member bench of Mallika Arya and Ankur Garg ruled that the supply of newspapers to passengers is exempt from GST.

Applicant's Name: M/s Adarsh Plant Protect Ltd.

The Gujarat Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) has held that the manually operated seed dressing, coating, and treating drum is covered within the description provided under the HSN Code 8436.

The two-member bench of Vivek Ranjan and Milind Toravane has observed that, as per HSN 843, other agricultural machinery includes seed dusting machines consisting of a revolving drum in which the seeds are coated with insecticidal or fungicidal powders.

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

The Gujarat Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) has observed that the 'flavoured milk' is categorised as "beverage".

The two-member bench of Vivek Ranjan and Milind Torawane has upheld the AAR's ruling and ruled that the 'Flavoured Milk' is classifiable under Tariff Item 2202 99 30 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

AAR

Applicant's Name: Attica Gold Private Limited

The Karnataka Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that the input tax credit (ITC) under the marginal scheme on expenses like rent, advertisement expenses, commission, professional expenses, and other like expenses is subject to sections 16 to 21 and rules 36-45 of the CGST Act and Rules 2017.

The two-member bench of M.P. Ravi Prasad and Kiran Reddy T. has observed that ITC can be claimed on capital goods under the marginal scheme, subject to sections 16 to 21 and rules 36-45 of the CGST Act and Rules 2017.

Applicant's Name: Shree Powertech

The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that activities carried out by subcontractors for the shifting of electrical utilities for the construction of roads cannot be regarded as a composite supply of works contracts.

Applicant's Name: Rites Limited

The Punjab Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that the GST is not payable on notice pay recovered from outgoing employees.

The member bench of Sunder Lal and Kumud Singh has observed that the amount received as notice pay recovery by the applicant from the employees who leave the applicant company without serving the mandatory notice period mentioned in the employment contract is not a consideration for any supply or service.

Applicant's Name: Bambino Pasta Food Industries Private Limited

The Telangana Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the tax paid on purchases made to meet the obligations under corporate social responsibility (CSR) will be eligible for input tax credit (ITC) under the CGST and SGST Acts.

Applicant's Name: Tara Genset Engineers Regd

The Uttarakhand Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that 18% GST is applicable on the cost of the diesel incurred for running diesel generators (DG) in the course of providing DG rental service.

The two-member bench of Anurag Mishra and Rameshwar Meena has observed that consideration for reimbursement of expenses, such as the cost of the diesel for running the DG set, is nothing but an additional consideration for the renting of the DG set.

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.

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.

Applicant's Name: Rajasthan Housing Board

The Rajasthan Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that services provided by the Rajasthan Housing Board in relation to any function entrusted to a municipality under Article 243 W of the Constitution are exempt from GST.

The two-member bench of Umesh Kumar Garg and M.S. Kavia has observed that the Rajasthan Housing Board is covered under the definition of "government authority."

Applicant's Name: Capfront Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

The Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that the GST exemption is available on the transfer of an independent part of business pertaining to mobile software.

The two-member bench of M.P. Ravi Prasad and Kiran Reddy T. has observed that the transfer of an independent part of business pertaining to the "Loan Front" app, a mobile software, qualifies as a transfer of going concern, and the said activity amounts to "service by way of transfer of going concerned as an independent part" and thus is exempt from GST.

Applicant's Name: Tube Investment of India Limited

The Uttarakhand Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) is not admissible on the amount paid to the canteen service providers and on the amount recovered from the employees.

The two-member bench of Rameshwar Meena and Anurag Mishra has observed that the nominal amount of recoveries made by the applicant from the employees who are provided food in the factory canteen would be considered a "supply."

Applicant's Name: M/s Shraddha Traders

The Chhattisgarh Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that 5% GST is payable on rejected or damaged paddy seeds.

The two-member bench of Sonal K. Mishra and Abhinav Aggarwal has observed that rejected paddy seed that is not fit for human consumption would merit classification under chapter heading 100610.

Applicant's Name: Mean Light Co.

The Karnataka Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that the products "satin rolls" and "taffeta rolls" with sizes between 19 mm and 40 mm are classifiable under tariff heading 5807 10 20 and attract 12% GST.

The two-member bench of Kiran Reddy T. and M.P. Ravi Prasad has observed that taffeta rolls are made up of polyester yarn with an acrylic coating to protect from raveling or fraying and also to have better printing quality. Satin rolls are made up of polyester yarn with an optical or non-optical coating for brightening and removing impurities. They have plain selvedges on both sides of the fabric and are cut with hot blades to arrest fabric fraying. Thus, the products qualify to be covered under "narrow woven fabrics."

Applicant's Name: Testmesures Spherea Solutions Private Limited

The Karnataka Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that a concessional rate under GST is not applicable to maintenance and repair services of test-bench equipment for aeronautics.

The two-member bench of M.P. Ravi Prasad and Kiran Reddy T. have observed that the concessional rate of GST of 5% is applicable to only Maintenance, repair or overhaul services in respect of aircraft, aircraft engines, and other aircraft components or parts. The applicant is providing maintenance and repair services of test bench equipment (Mermoz system) which are used for testing the airworthiness of an aircraft. The equipment does not qualify to be an aircraft or an aircraft engine.

Applicant's Name: Yaadvi Scientific Solutions Private Limited

The Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that the reverse charge mechanism (RCM) is not applicable to reimbursement of expenses paid on behalf of the company at actuals that are incurred by the employee staff, who is also a whole-time director of the company.

The two-member bench of M.P. Ravi Prasad and Kiran Reddy T. has observed that reimbursement of expenses at an actual cost that is incurred by the employee staff on behalf of the company is not subject to tax.

Applicant's Name: Shree Constructions

The Telangana Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that 18% GST is payable on work contract services for constructing warehouses and cold storage godowns for Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (TSIICL), which will rent out the facilities.

Applicant's Name: M/s. IVL India Environmental R&D Pvt Ltd.

The Maharashtra Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the transfer of monetary proceeds by IVL India to the applicant IVL Sweden will be liable for payment of integrated goods and services tax under the reverse charge mechanism.

The two-member bench of M. Rammohan Rao and T.R. Ramnani has observed that other than the service provided by the applicant to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), there is a very definite service being provided by IVL Sweden, located outside India, on account of its experience, credentials, and expertise, to the applicant, located in India, that enables the applicant to perform under the contract. There is no doubt that the services are being supplied in the taxable territory, i.e., India.

Applicant's Name: Healthy Life Foodtech Pvt. Ltd.

The Maharashtra Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that 18% GST is payable on glaze gels.

The two-member bench of M. Rammohan Rao and T.R. Ramnani has observed that while sugar-baked confectionery is directly sold to ultimate end users for consumption, glaze gel is not consumed by end consumers, rather its product is used by cake manufacturers as a filling between sponge layers of cakes.

The applicant manufactures glaze gels and markets them to bakeries all across India. The glaze gel is processed in a manner similar to boiled sugar confectionery.

Applicant's Name: M/s. Tata Motors Limited

The Maharashtra Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that the supply of Tata garbage tipper vehicles to Municipalities shall attract 28% GST.

The two-member bench of M. Rammohan Rao and T.R. Ramnani has observed that garbage tipper vehicles can be used for the transportation of goods. The starting words of Entry 8704 are "Motor Vehicles for the Transport of Goods." Thus, the rate of tax applicable shall be 28%; as only refrigerated vehicles are taxable at 18%; and all trucks covered under heading 8704 are taxable at 28%.

Applicant's Name: M/s. Mumbai Aviation Fuel Farm Facility Pvt Ltd.

The Maharashtra Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) is not available on goods and services used for the construction of a pipeline laid outside the factory premises.

The two-member bench of M. Rammohan Rao and T.R. Ramnani has observed that, as per the explanation to Section 17 of the GST Act, "plant and machinery" does not include a pipeline laid outside the factory premises.

Applicant's Name: Das & Sons

The Orissa Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that "Raula Gundi," which is "chewing tobacco without lime tubes," attracts 28% GST with a 160% Compensation Cess.

The two members of the bench, G.K. Pati and P.K. Mohanty have observed that "Raula Gundi," i.e., chewable gundi, is "chewing tobacco," the principal or predominant ingredient of which is tobacco.

Applicant's Name: M/s University of Kota

The Rajasthan Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has observed that affiliation provided by Kota University to its constituent colleges for imparting education is a supply and taxable under GST.

The two-member bench of Umesh Kumar Garg and M. S. Kavia has observed that the affiliation services provided by Kota University enable the institution to conduct the course or programme and do not relate to the admission of students to the course or programme or the conduct of examinations for admission to the institution. The exempted examination services are those related to admission to the institution and not to the examination based on which degree, title, etc. are conferred to the students, as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, the "affiliation" fees collected by Kota University are not exempt from GST.

Applicant's Name: M/s Shakti Marine Electric Corporation

The Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that combined wire rope is not a part of a fishing vessel but it is used to tie the fishing net with the vessel and 18% GST is applicable.

The two-member bench of Amit Kumar Mishra and Milind Kavatkar has observed that goods whenever used as a part of a fishing vessel or vessel attract 5% GST, otherwise, they attract the applicable GST rate of the goods.

Applicant's Name: Simoco Telecommunications(South Asia) Limited

The West Bengal Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the 18% GST is payable on the operation and maintenance of municipal wet waste processing facilities.

The two-member bench of Varindra Kaur and Viraj Shyamkarn Tidke observed that the supply of services to be provided to the State Urban Development Agency for the design, build, finance, operation, and transfer of municipal wet waste processing facility based on composting and bio-methanation technology; setting up a semi-automatic material recovery facility for dry waste; and construction of a sanitary landfill along with operation and maintenance under Swachh Bharat Mission/Mission Nirmal Bangla is classifiable under SAC 9994 as "sewage and waste collection, treatment, disposal and other environmental protection services."

Applicant's Name: Ahuja Industries

The Punjab Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the 5% GST is chargeable on goods transport agency (GTA) services availed by the applicant for transporting cotton seed (Banaula) provided that the credit of input tax charged on goods and services used in supplying the service has not been taken, else 12% GST is applicable.

The two-member bench of Varindra Kaur and Viraj Shyamkarn Tidke has observed that Cotton Seed (Banaula) is not eligible for exemption from payment of GST on GTA services.

Applicant's Name: Puthusserikudy Thankappan Santosh

The Kerala Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that commercial vehicle body building on chassis supplied by the customer is a supply of service.

The two-member bench of S.L. Sreeparvathy and Abraham Renn S. has observed that commercial vehicle body building on chassis supplied by the customer attracts 18% GST.

Applicant's Name: Gurjinder Singh Sandhu

The Uttarakhand Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that when the transaction value of the goods transport agency (GTA) service is added to the free value of diesel, the value of free diesel filled by the service recipient in the vehicle(s) provided by the applicant will be subject to GST.

The two-member bench of Anurag Mishra and Rameshwar Meena has observed that the input, i.e., fuel, to run and operate the vehicle, provided free of cost by the recipient of the service, for transportation of goods, shall form part of the value of supply in view of Section 15 of the CGST Act, 2017. The cost of the input has to be paid by the supplier of services but incurred by the recipient, as for the purpose of the levy of GST, the cost of all the inputs, whether provided free of cost or not, has to be included in the value of supply.

Applicant's Name: Uralungal Labour Contract Co-operative Society Ltd

The Kerala Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that work contract services provided to Malabar Cancer Centre attract 18% GST with effect from 01.01.2022.

The two-member bench of S.L. Sreeparvathy and Abraham Renn S. has observed that Malabar Cancer Centre is a society established by the State Government with 100 per cent participation by way of equity or control, to carry out the function of public health, a function entrusted to a municipality as well as a panchayat under Article 243W and Article 243G, respectively, of the Constitution and accordingly falls within the definition of governmental authority.

Applicant's Name: M/s Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.

The Punjab Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that "coal rejects" are to be classified under HSN 2701 and are taxable at 5% GST.

Applicant's Name: Kerala State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development Limited (MATSYAFED)

The Kerala Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has observed that 5% GST is applicable on fishing vessel marine engines and their spare parts.

Applicant's Name: Crescent Builders

The Kerala Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that affordable residential apartments attract 1.5% GST.

The bench of Sreeparvathi and Abraham Renn has held that a new tax structure for the real estate sector was introduced with effect from 01.04.2019 onwards by the amendment of Notification No. 11/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 by Notification No. 03/2019 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 29.03.2019. The construction services are being rendered by the applicant after 01.04.2019 and hence the rate as notified under the new tax structure is applicable in respect of the construction services rendered by the applicant.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Applicant's Name: Rohit Singh Kharwar

The West Bengal Authority of Advance Ruling consisting of Brajesh Kumar Singh and Joyjit Banik has ruled that a three-wheeled electrically operated vehicle, commonly known as an e-rickshaw, when supplied without a battery, is classifiable as an "electrically operated motor vehicle" under HSN 8703.

Applicant's Name: Srinivas Waste Management Services Private Limited

The Tamil Nadu Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that contracts with municipalities towards supply of solid waste management, except Bio-CNG carried on at the Central Asphaltic Plant for the Greater Chennai Corporation, are exempted from GST.

The two-member bench of G. Venkatesh and K. Latha has ruled that contracts entered into with various city corporations and municipalities towards the supply of pure services towards the removal of legacy waste dumped at dump sites through the bio-mining process are exempted from GST.

Toll Charges Are Included In The Value Of Outward Supply: Tamil Nadu AAR

Applicant's Name: NTL India Private Limited

The Tamil Nadu Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) consisting of T.G.Venkatesh and K.Latha has ruled that the value of toll charges, being incidental expenses incurred while providing outward supply, is liable to be included in the value of outward supply of service.

Applicant's Name: Rohit Singh Kharwar

The West Bengal Authority of Advance Ruling consisting of Brajesh Kumar Singh and Joyjit Banik has ruled that a three-wheeled electrically operated vehicle, commonly known as an e-rickshaw, when supplied without a battery, is classifiable as an "electrically operated motor vehicle" under HSN 8703.

Applicant's Name: Sri Vinayaka Hatcheries

The Andhra Pradesh Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR), consisting of D. Ramesh and RV Pradhamesh Bhanu, has ruled that 18% GST is payable on the rental of land for fish or prawn farming as the purpose of use of land was not mentioned in the lease agreement.

Applicant's Name: Universal Print System

The Andhra Pradesh Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that GST is not payable on the scanning and processing of results of examinations.

The two-member bench of D. Ramesh and RV Pradhamesh Bhanu has observed that the printing of pre-examination items like question papers, OMR sheets (Optical Mark Reading), and answer booklets for the conducting of an examination by the educational boards be treated as an exempted supply of service.

Applicant's Name: Be Well Hospitals

The Tamil Nadu Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the supply of medicines and consumables used in the course of providing health care services to outpatients admitted to the hospital for diagnosis, medical treatment, or procedures is not a composite supply. As a result, it is subject to GST.

The two-member bench of T.G.Venkatesh and K.Latha has ruled that the supply of medicines and consumables used in the course of providing health care services to in-patients admitted to the hospital for diagnosis, medical treatment, or procedures till discharge is a composite supply. It amounts to composite supply only when the consolidated bill raised in the name of the patient indicates the supply of medicines and consumables during the course of the provision of health care services. Hence, it is exempted from GST.

Applicant's Name: NSK Ship Management Private Limited

The Tamil Nadu Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the vessel support services provided in relation to foreign vessels sailing to other countries outside India fall under "export of services" as per Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, as the "place of supply" in such cases is entirely "outside India".

The two-member bench of T.G.Venkatesh and K.Latha has observed that if such vessels are calling at a port in India, then the Place of Supply in respect of that vessel is in India as per Section 13(6) of the IGST Act 2017 and the services rendered to that vessel are not an "export of service".

Applicant's Name: Myntra Designs Private Limited

The Karnataka Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) consisting of M.P.Ravi Prasad and T.KIran Reddy has ruled that the sale of internet advertising space (except on commission) is eligible for 18% GST.

The Madhya Pradesh Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the product marketed under the brand name "Ber Berry" manufactured and supplied is covered and classifiable under the GST Tariff heading 2008.

The two-member panel of Virendra Kumar Jain and Manoj Kumar Choubey observed that chapter 8 exclusively covers fresh fruit or fruit cooked by steaming or boiling in water. However, the applicant's procedure exceeds the process covered by chapter 0811. In the applicant's case, the product is soaked in boiling water before being transported to a steamed jacketed tank where it is cooked with steam and additional components such as sugar, salt, preservatives, and spices are added. The process of manufacture of the product of the applicant is not simple to cover in chapter 0811. The applicant's procedure involves the production of fruit that incorporates preservatives as well as additional additives such as sugar, salt, and spices. The tariff classifies it as chapter heading number 2008.

Applicant's Name: M/s. Vodafone Idea Limited

The Telangana Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the supply of telecommunication services to local authorities is a taxable service.

The two-member bench of B. Raghu Kiran and S.V. Kasi Visweswara Rao has observed that Vodafone Idea Limited is providing data and voice services to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) and to the employees of the municipalities. There is no direct relation between the services provided by Vodafone Idea Limited and the functions discharged by the GHMC under Article 243W read with Schedule 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the telecommunication services do not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 12/2017.

Applicant's Name: M/s. Sri Bhavani Developers

The Telangana Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the manpower supply or labour supply services by the manpower supply agency fall under SAC 98519 and are taxable at the rate of 18%. The tax has to be paid by the manpower supply agency.

The two-member bench of B. Raghu Kiran and S.V. Kasi Visweswara Rao has observed that GST will not be attracted for labour engaged on a daily basis or for employees, etc., if the service is rendered in the course of employment.

Applicant's Name: Indian Security And Personnel Arrangement

GST Not Payable on Services Provided To Horticulture Dept. for Cleaning Transportation of Garbage: AAR

The Karnataka Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that the GST is not payable on services provided to the horticulture department for cleaning and sweeping of lawns, garden path areas, segregation and transportation of garbage.

The two-member bench of M.P. Ravi Prasad and T. Kiran Reddy has observed that GST is not payable on the services proposed to be provided to the Horticulture Department for the supply of manpower for garden maintenance on an outsourced basis to the Department of Horticulture.

Applicant's Name: Bhagyam Binding Works

The Karnataka Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Act, 1960 and receiving grants from the Government of Karnataka for the supply of free textbooks to students cannot be considered as "State Government".

The two-member bench of M.P. Ravi Prasad and T. Kiran Reddy has observed that the rate of tax being charged by the printers on the printing of textbooks supplied to the society is taxable at the rate of 18% GST.

Applicant's Name: Avani infosoft Private Limited

The Karnataka Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the services of educating and training farmers with regard to agroforestry through scientific research and knowledge do not attract GST.

The two-member bench of M.P. Ravi Prasad and T.Kiran Reddy has observed that the applicants, through their mara mitras, not only educate and train farmers with regard to agroforestry through scientific research and knowledge, but are also involved in hand holding the farmers from recording demand for saplings, picking up the samplings from nurseries to their plantation, and also monitoring post-plantation survival.

Applicant's Name: Knk Karts (p) Limited

The Karnataka Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the "Go-karts" are not roadworthy and cannot be registered as motor vehicles with the Regional Transport Authority (RTO). Go-Karts are not classifiable as "motor vehicles meant for carrying passengers or persons" under Chapter Tariff Heading 8703 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

The two–member bench of M.P. Ravi Prasad and T.Kiran Reddy has observed that the 'amusement park ride karts', commonly known as' Go-karts', manufactured and supplied by the applicant attract GST at the rate of 18%.

Applicant's Name: P.K.S Centre for Learning

The Karnataka Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that the printing of question papers constitutes a supply of service and the printing of answer booklets constitutes a supply of goods.

The two-member bench of M.P.Ravi Prasad and T.Kiran Reddy has observed that the GST exemption is available on the question papers. However, GST is payable on the answer booklets.

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

The Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the GST is not leviable on the employee's portion of canteen charges.

The two-member bench of Amit Kumar Mishra and Atul Mehta has observed that GST is leviable on the amount representing the contractual worker portion of canteen charges, which is collected and paid to the canteen service provider.

Applicant's Name: Indian Security and Personnel arrangements

The Karnataka Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that GST is not payable on the services of cleaning and sweeping of lawns and garden path areas and segregating and transporting garbage.

The two-member bench of M.P. Ravi Prasad and T. Kiran Reddy has observed that no GST is payable on the supply of manpower for garden maintenance on an outsourced basis to the Department of Horticulture which is liable for GST at NIL.

Applicant's Name: Yankee Constructions LLP

The Karnataka Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that 12% GST is payable on work contract services executed for the Karnataka Housing Board for the construction of a police station.

The two-member bench of M.P. Ravi Prasad and T.Kiran Reddy has held that work contract services executed to the Karnataka Slum Development Board under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, as a main contractor, are liable to 12% GST till 17.07.2022 and liable to tax at 18% GST from 18.07.2022.

Applicant's Name: Raj Mohan Seshamani

The West Bengal Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that the supply of services for the plantation of mangrove seeds and seedlings in coastal areas would attract 18% GST.

The two-member bench of Brajesh Kumar Singh and Joyjit Banik observed that no GST is payable on the supply of services for cultivation, planting and nurturing of fruit trees.

Applicant's Name: Anamika Agrawal

The West Bengal Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that the supply of services for printing on duplex board belonging to the recipient, including cutting, punching, and lamination of the duplex board, so printed, would attract 12% GST irrespective of whether the recipient of the services is registered under the GST Act or not.

The two-member bench of Brajesh Kumar Singh and Joyjit Banik observed that the activities of printing on duplex boards belonging to its customer, including cutting, punching, and lamination, as and when required by the customer, shall be treated as services by way of job work.

Applicant's Name: Himalayan Flour Mill Pvt. Ltd.

The West Bengal Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the composite supply of services by way of milling of food grains into flour to the Government of West Bengal for distribution of flour under the Public Distribution System is eligible for GST exemption.

The two-member bench of Brajesh Kumar Singh and Joyjit Banik observed that the value of by-products retained by the appellant and yielded during CMR milling, which were allowed to be retained by the appellant to meet the CMR activity cost, must obviously be included as part of the value of supply and also be considered a bona fide form of consideration.The value of supply shall be the consideration in money and shall also include all the components for non-cash consideration.

Applicant's Name: KMV Projects Limited

The Karnataka Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that 18% GST is payable on the work contract services executed for the state government for the construction of the airport terminal building and greenfield airport.

The two-member bench of M.P. Ravi Prasad and T. Kiran Reddy has observed that work contract services executed for Karnataka State Police Housing and Infrastructure Corporation Limited for the Construction of High-Security Prison are liable to tax at 18% GST with effect from 01.01.2022.

Applicant's Name: M/s. Incnut Lifestyle Retail Private Limited

The Telangana Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that 12% GST is payable on the supply of ayurvedic products under AYUSH department licences.

The two-member bench of B. Raghu Kiran and S.V. Kasi Visweswara Rao has observed that the products which are used for care are treated as "cosmetics" and therefore taxed at 18% GST. 12% GST is payable on the products which are used for cure and are treated as 'Medicaments' falling under Serial No. 63 of Schedule II.

Applicant's Name: United Breweries Limited

The Karnataka Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the Kingfisher Radler attracts 28% GST and 12% Cess.

The two-member bench of M.P. Ravi Prasad and T. Kiran Reddy has observed that the product "Kingfisher Radler" has different variants and all the variants merit classification as carbonated beverages of fruit drinks, all covered under tariff heading 2202 99 90.

Applicant's Name: Myntra Designs Pvt. Ltd.

The Karnataka Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that Myntra is not entitled to an Input Tax Credit (ITC) on vouchers and subscription packages procured from third-party vendors.

The two-member bench of M.P. Ravi Prasad and T. Kiran Reddy has observed that Myntra is not eligible to avail of the input tax credit, in terms of Section 16 of the CGST Act 2017, on the vouchers and subscription packages procured by the applicant from the third party vendors that are made available to the eligible customers participating in the loyalty programme against the loyalty points accumulated by the customers, as the ITC is not available in terms of Section 17(5)(h) of the CGST Act 2017.

Applicant's Name: AS&D Enterprise LLP

The Haryana Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that security services provided by LLP to any registered person are not covered by the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) and are taxable on a forward charge basis.

The two-member bench of Sunder Lal and Kumud Singh has ruled that an LLP is a body corporate for the purpose of the Companies Act, 2013 and the same would apply to the term body corporate. As a consequence, the reverse charge mechanism would not be applicable. Moreover, the legislative intention behind the application of RCM is to those supplies in which the government or executive do not have control over the supplier or who are working in the unorganised sector. So, the RCM is made applicable to any person other than a body corporate.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Case Title: S.M. Overseas (P) Ltd. Versus CIT

Case Title: Singapore Airlines Ltd. vs C.I.T., Delhi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 959

The Supreme Court held that Section 194H of the Income Tax Act is attracted in the case of Supplementary Commission amounts earned by the travel agent and therefore Airlines are liable to deduct TDS in this regard.

The bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and MM Sundresh upheld the Delhi High Court judgement and overruled the Bombay High Court judgement in CIT v. Qatar Airways [2009 SCC OnLine Bom 2179] that had held otherwise.

Case Title: PCIT Versus Royal Western India Turf Club

The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice of India, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, and Justice Hima Kohli has dismissed the special leave petition of the department challenging the decision of the Bombay High Court. The Bombay High Court has held that any sum paid by a member of a club to acquire the rights of a club is a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt.

CASE TITLE: The Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Mansukh Dyeing and Printing Mills

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 991

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh held that Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act was applicable to not only the cases of dissolution but also cases of subsisting partners of a partnership, transferring the assets in favour of a retiring partner.

Case Title: Deputy Commissioner of Gift Tax Versus M/s BPL Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 848

The Supreme Court has held that the valuation of shares for the purpose of gift tax must take into consideration the limitations and restrictions.

The division bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice J.K. Maheshwari has observed that the equity shares under the lock-in period were not "quoted shares", for the simple reason that the shares in the lock-in period were not quoted on any recognised stock exchange regularity from time to time. There are no current transactions relating to these shares made in the ordinary course of business. The equity shares, being under the lock-in period, could not be traded and, therefore, remained unquoted on any recognised stock exchange.

Case Title : Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority and connected cases

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 865

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held that entities created with the object of advancing general public utility cannot seek exemption under the Income Tax Act 1961 under the head "charitable purposes" if they are engaging in any trade, business, commerce or providing any service for any consideration.

Case Title : Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority and connected cases

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 865

The Supreme Court has pronounced a significant judgment on the scope of exemption for "charitable purposes" under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act 1961 in relation to statutory authorities and professional bodies.

With effect from 01.04.2009, after the Finance Act 2009, a proviso was added to the section to state : "Provided that the advancement of any other object of general public utility shall not be a charitable purpose, if it involves the carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business, or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business, for a cess or fee or any other consideration, irrespective of the nature of use or application, or retention, of the income from such activity".

Case Title: Principal Director Of Income Tax (Investigation) vs Laljibhai KanjiBhai Mandalia | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 592

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 592

The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered on Wednesday, restated the principles in exercising the writ jurisdiction in the matter of search and seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act.

"The sufficiency or inadequacy of the reasons to believe recorded cannot be gone into while considering the validity of an act of authorization to conduct search and seizure", the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.

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).

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Case Title: Rajasthan Global Securities Private Limited Versus ACIT

The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment order in the name of a non-existing entity.

The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that not only was the notice issued in the name of the transferor company but the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, as well as the notice under Section 148, have been issued on the PAN of the transferor company.

Case Title: Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Daikin Shri Ram Aircon Pvt Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1026

The Delhi High Court while ruling in favour of the Daikin Shri Ram Aircon Pvt. Ltd. has held that the business rights acquired for valuable consideration constitute an intangible asset within the meaning of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act and depreciation is allowable.

Case Title: Medeor Hospital Ltd. Versus PCIT

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) FAQ No. 59 of Circular No.21/2020 dated December 4, 2020, which contemplates admission of appeal before the filing of declaration as a condition precedent for the appeal to be treated as pending and eligible for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (VSV Act) is contrary to law.

Case Title: Srishtii Infra Housing Pvt. Ltd. Versus PCIT

The Delhi High Court, while exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has condoned the delay in payments under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas (VSV) due to COVID and the death of the managing director of the company.

Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax versus Somnath Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1048

The Delhi High Court has ruled that advertisement expenses, Software Developing Charges, and expenses towards brokerage and commission, incurred by a real estate developer, are in the nature of general administration cost and selling cost, as classified by the Guidance Note issued by the ICAI. Thus, they qualify for deduction as revenue expenditure.

Case Title: Deepak Kapoor Versus PCIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1065

The Delhi High Court has held that the reassessment notice based on an error resulting from the oversight of the assessing officer is not valid.

Case Title: IBIBO Group Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT

The Delhi High Court has stayed the reassessment order against an online travel agent, IBIBO Group, and issued a notice to the income tax department.

"The Assessing Officer is permitted to pass the reassessment order, yet the same shall not be given effect to and shall be subject to further orders to be passed by this Court," the division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora ordered.

Case Title: PCIT Versus PGF Ltd.

The Delhi High Court has held that the statement recorded during the course of the search, on a standalone basis, without any reference to material found during the search, would not empower the AO to make additions/disallowance merely on the assessee's admission.

Case Title: PCIT Versus Pawa Infrastructure (P) Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1215

The Delhi High Court has held that the leasehold rights held by the assessee in the plot were a capital asset and that the compensation received by the assessee from the Government of Goa on the cancellation of the plot was a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that if an agreement for the transfer of rights in an immovable property is not performed by the transferor, the transferee is entitled to compensation as he/she is deprived of the price of escalation. Therefore, the character of the payment received as compensation by the transferee bears the character of a capital receipt. The payment of interest in the facts of the present case is compensatory in nature and, therefore, does not bear the character of a revenue receipt.

Case Title: Rajinder Kumar Versus State

The Delhi High Court upheld the prosecution for an undisclosed foreign bank account, observing that the age at the time of the offense must be taken into account, not when the proceedings were initiated.

The single judge bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Pradip Burman vs. Income Tax Office, in which it was held that Circular/Instruction No. 5051 dated 07.02.1991 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) does not bar the initiation of prosecution for those who have attained the age of 70 years.

Case Title: PCIT Versus PEC Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1186

The Delhi High Court has allowed the deduction of expenses undertaken under the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) endeavor under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The division bench of Justice Rajeev Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the memorandum, which was published along with Finance (No. 2) Bill 2014, clearly indicated that the amendment would take effect from 01.04.2015 and, accordingly, would apply in relation to assessment year 2015-2016 and the subsequent years.

Case Title: PCIT Versus Simon India Ltd.

The Delhi High Court has held that reinstatement of year-end losses on forward cover purchase contracts is allowable in spite of the fact that the forward contracts have not been closed.

The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakharu and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, while upholding the findings of the tribunal, held that the loss on account of forward contracts cannot be considered speculative.

Case Title: Vikram Bhatnagar Versus ACIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1093

(Video) 100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2022 - PART-4

The Delhi High Court has quashed the assessment order passed against the dead person without bringing on record all his legal representatives is void.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the death of the assessee was duly communicated by his legal heirs. The ITR also duly disclosed that it was filed by the legal representative. However, due to a lack of knowledge of the facts on the record, the scrutiny proceedings were wrongfully conducted in the name of the deceased assessee without bringing all of his legal heirs to the record as required by law.

Case Title: RMSI Private Limited Versus NaFAC

The Delhi High Court has quashed the assessment order passed without issuing a show cause notice or a draft assessment order which has been mandated under Section 144B(1)(xvi)(b) of the Income Tax Act.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla has directed the department to issue a show-cause notice within four weeks.

Case Title: GPL-RKTCPL JV Versus NaFAC

The Delhi High Court has referred to the larger bench the question of whether the presence of National Faceless Assessment Centre (NaFAC) in Delhi is sufficient to hear a writ petition when the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is located outside of Delhi.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for the constitution of a larger bench.

Case Title: MUFG Bank Versus CIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1122

The Delhi High Court has held that the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (DTVSV Act) is neither a taxing statute nor an amnesty act. It is a remedial or beneficial statute.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that any ambiguity in a taxing statute ensures the benefit of the assessee, but any ambiguity in the amnesty act or exemption clause in an exemption notification has to be construed in favor of the revenue. The amnesty or exemption has to be given only to those assesses who demonstrate that they satisfy all the conditions precedent for availing of the amnesty or exemption.

Case Title: Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal versus Income Tax Officer

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the order passed by NCLT under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, directing restoration of a struck off company, will have the effect of placing the company in the same position as if the name of the company had not been struck off from the register of companies. Thus, the Court held that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued against a Company on the date it stood dissolved as a consequence of being struck off, was valid in view of the subsequent order passed by the NCLT.

Case Title: Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Daikin Shri Ram Aircon Pvt Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1026

Case Title: PCIT Versus M/s Boeing India Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 985

The Delhi High Court, while upholding the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), has held that the provision of TDS on NRI payments under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act has no application once the nature of payment is determined as salary and a deduction has been made under Section 192.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the real employer of the seconded employees continues to be the Indian entity and not the overseas entity.

Case Title: Nagesh Trading Co. Versus Income Tax Officer

The Delhi High Court has quashed the show-cause notice and the reassessment order as the department failed to pass the reassessment order within the prescribed time limit.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the department could not have issued another notice to the petitioner/assessee under Section 148A(b) dated June 2, 2022, after having issued and served the notice on March 31, 2021, under Section 148 of the unamended Act.

Case Title: PCIT Versus M/s Rajdarbar Heritage Venture Limited

The Delhi High Court has held that income tax cannot be levied on the interest income from fixed deposits till the ownership is determined by the arbitral tribunal.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has agreed with the finding of the two Appellate Authorities below that till the final award was passed by the Arbitral Tribunal determining the ownership of the fixed deposits and interest, it could not be said that the interest income had crystallised in the assessee's hands and that it could not be held to be the income of the assessee under Section 5(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Case Title: CIT Versus Travelport L.P. USA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 946

The Delhi High Court has held that the travel agents in India were merely connected to the extent that they could perform a booking function but were not capable of processing the data of all the airlines together in one place.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has held that a booking function is not covered under substantial business activity and, therefore, not taxable.

Case Title: Jones LNG Lasalle Property Consultants Versus DCIT

The Delhi High Court directed the income tax department to decide the rectification applications filed by Jones LNG Lasalle Property Consultants.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Preetam Singh Arora has directed that if any refund is due and payable to the petitioner, it shall be refunded within eight weeks.

Case Title: PCIT Versus Mamta Agarwal

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 740

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Preetam Singh Arora held that if no incriminating material is found during the course of the search, then no addition can be made in the assessment under Sections 153A and 153C of the Income Tax Act.

Case Title: M/s Best Buildwell Private Limited Versus ITO

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 755

The Delhi High Court has held that the show cause notice as well as the reassessment order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act were based on distinct and separate grounds. The department failed to provide the details of the transaction and the vendors from whom the bogus purchases were made.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that "the show cause notice primarily states that "it is seen that the petitioner has made purchases from certain non-filers." However, no details or any information about these entities were provided to the petitioner. It is not understood as to how the petitioner was to know which of the entities it dealt with were filers or non-filers!"

Case Title: M/s Expeditors International Of Washingtion, Inc. Versus ACIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 759

The Delhi High Court has held that the recovery of demand against issues decided in favour of the assessee is unwarranted.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Singh Arora has found that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has itself issued an Instruction dated February 2, 1993, giving guidelines for Stay of Demand. One of the guidelines for the grant of complete stay was "if the demand in dispute relates to issues that have been decided in assessee's favour by an appellate authority or court earlier...."

Case Title: Miss Indira Uppal Versus UOI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 764

The Delhi High Court has held that the petitioner's real intent was to ensure that gift tax is not levied on donee. The petition does not promote the maintenance and welfare of senior citizens.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Preetam Singh Arora has observed that as per the object of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Income Tax Act, 1961, the expression "relative" is not used in a similar context. The term "relative" being wholly context-specific, there is no reason to assume that the criteria used in defining it in one context will provide even a useful starting point in another context.

Case Title: Trueblue India LLP Vs Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle

The Delhi High Court has held that an order under Section 241A of the Income Tax Act cannot be passed in a mechanical and routine manner. The refunds cannot be withheld just because the notice under Section 143(2) has been issued and the department wants to verify the claim for deduction under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the order under Section 241A was generic and no attempt was made by the department to substantiate how the grant of the refund is likely to adversely affect the revenue.

Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 versus TV Today Network Ltd.

The Delhi High Court has allowed the assessee- TV Today Network Ltd.'s claims for deduction of expenses in nature of 'consumption incentive' offered to the advertisers for booking more advertisement space.

The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, reiterated that the 'due date', in case of delay by the assessee in depositing the employees' contribution to Provident Fund under Section 36(1) (va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is to be reckoned as the date for filing the return under Section 139 (1) and not the due date as prescribed under the relevant Labour statute. The Court added that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va), vide the Finance Act, 2021, is 'for removal of doubts' and hence, it cannot be presumed to be retrospective since it alters the law as it earlier stood.

Case Title: PCIT Versus Punjab & Sind Bank

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 776

The Delhi High Court held that the Punjab & Sind Bank is entitled to a refund of money deposited by it upon re-computation by the department and interest is liable to be paid under Section 244A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that a sum has been found refundable to the assessee as a consequence of a reduction in the taxable income. The sum directed to be refunded to the assessee is a debt in the hands of the department, and for the department to term "payment of this debt" as "interest" is fallacious. In fact, it is on the payment of this debt that the assessee is demanding that the department be liable to pay interest for the period that the department retained the money.

Case Title: Kapri International Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 796

The Delhi High Court has ruled that where an application under the Companies Act has been filed by a company in liquidation against the order of the revenue authorities rejecting the application for waiver of interest for delay in payment of tax dues, the said dispute would fall within the scope of Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (VSV Act).

The Bench consisting of Justices Mukta Gupta and Anish Dayal ruled that the VSV Act is not a taxing statute but one which provides a dispute resolution scheme for tax disputes and hence, it would be amenable to a purposive construction. The Court held that it was the intent of the legislature to include all sorts of disputes under the VSV Act, even if they were pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax or the courts.

Case Title: Ernst and Young U.S. LLP versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 798

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the order passed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not an assessment for the purposes of Section 147 and hence, it is not necessary for the Assessing Officer to come across some fresh tangible material to form a belief that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment in order to reopen assessment.

The Bench of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that no opinion is formed by way of the order passed under Section 143(1), and that only an intimation is issued to the assessee when the return initially filed by it is processed; thus, the doctrine of change of opinion is not attracted.

Delhi High Court

Case Title: Kapri International Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT

The Delhi High Court has held that the attempt by the CIT to exclude genuine disputants of tax liability from the possibility of settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act (VSV) is extremely hyper-technical.

The division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal has observed that any proceeding challenging a decision by the department in respect of tax, interest, penalty, fee, etc. would come within the purview of a "dispute", which would enable a party to approach the department for a resolution under the VSV Act.

Case Title: Touchstone Holdings Private Limited Versus Income Tax Officer

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 890

The Delhi High Court has held that the reassessment notices issued between 1st April 2021 and 30th June 2021, will be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the re-assessment notice dated 29.06.2021, which has been issued within the extended period of limitation, is not time-barred.

Case Title: Indiabulls Housing and Finance Limited v Enforcement Directorate

The Delhi High Court has set aside the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against Indiabulls Housing and Finance Limited (IHFL) and its employees.

The division bench of Justice Anish Dayal and Justice Mukta Gupta relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors. The supreme court held that authorities under the PMLA cannot resort to action against any person for money laundering on the assumption that the property recovered by them must be proceeds of crime and that a scheduled offence has been committed. The scheduled offence must be registered with the jurisdictional police or pending inquiry by way of complaint before the competent forum. In the event that there is already a registered scheduled offence but the person named in the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence is finally absolved by a court of competent jurisdiction owing to an order of discharge, acquittal or quashing of the criminal case of the scheduled offence, there can be no action for money laundering against not only such a person but also any person claiming through him in relation to the property linked to the stated scheduled offence.

Case Title: Suman Jeet Agarwal Versus ITO

The Delhi High Court has held that the issuance of e-mail-attaching electronic notice to an unrelated e-mail address does not constitute due despatch and, therefore, the notices cannot be said to have been issued on 31st March 2021.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that since an authenticated copy of the notice was placed on the registered account of the assessee on the E-filing portal, as that is how the petitioners learnt about the notices, the notices will be held to have been issued on the date on which the notices were first viewed by the assessees on their e-filing portal.

Case Title: Rithala Education Society Versus Union Of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 816

The Delhi High Court held that the significance of issuing a show cause notice prior to issuing a re-assessment notice has been lost because the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act was made without taking into account the detailed reply filed by the assessee.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh has observed that the department has not examined the petitioner's plea that the petitioner-society has included all the transactions carried out by the Citizen Model School in its books of accounts.

Case Title: PVR Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 817

The Delhi High Court has allowed the appeal of PVR Ltd. and allowed the deduction on the difference between the price at which stock options were offered to employees of the appellant company under ESOP and ESPS and the prevailing market price of the stock.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has relied on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Biocon Ltd. and has observed that an assessee is entitled to claim a deduction under Section 37(1) if the expenditure has been incurred. The expression "expenditure" will also include a loss, and therefore, the issuance of shares at a discount where the assessee absorbs the difference between the price at which they are issued and the market value of the shares would also be expenditure incurred for the purposes of Section 37(1). The primary object is not to waste capital but to earn profits by securing the consistent services of the employees. Therefore, it cannot be construed as a short receipt of capital.

Bombay High Court

Case Title: Rajendra R. Singh versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that exercise of jurisdiction under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the director of a public company, to recover the tax dues of the said company, is violative of the principles of natural justice, where the Income Tax Authority has failed to give any opportunity of hearing to the director before applying the principle of 'lifting the corporate veil'.

The Bench, consisting of Justices Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Abhay Ahuja, held that the recovery procedure under Section 179 against the directors of the assessee company cannot be resorted to casually.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Case Title: CIT Versus Microsoft Corporation

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 483

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.

Case Title: Vipul Aggarwal versus Income Tax Office

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a person cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 276-CC (Failure to furnish returns of income) of the Income Tax Act, except with the previous sanction of the Principal Commissioner/appropriate authority.

A single judge bench of Justice Asha Menon held, "Since the law provides that without sanction u/s 278B of the IT Act, the Department cannot proceed against a person found liable to prosecute him for the offence under Section 276 CC of the IT Act, the present prosecution must fail qua the petitioner. In the absence of a specific sanction for prosecuting the petitioner, the learned ACMM could not have taken cognizance of the complaint against him and then framed charges against him. The edifice built without foundation must crumble."

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Explanation to Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, added vide the Finance Act, 2022, cannot be presumed to be retrospective in nature since it is clarificatory in nature and alters the law as it stood earlier.

The Division Bench of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sedco Forex International Drill. Inc. versus CIT (2005), the amendment to Section 14A, which is "for removal of doubts", cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even if such a language is used, since it alters and changes the law as it prevailed before.

Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I Versus Future First Info. Services Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 696

The Delhi High Court has held that no disallowance under Section 40 (a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act is called for in the case of a short deduction of TDS and the correct course of action would have been to invoke Section 201 of the Income Tax Act.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) has to be based on cogent material or reasoning by the Assessing Officer.

Case Title: Celerity Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 73-1

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 706

The Delhi High Court has held that the tax payment software has to be tailor-made according to the needs, aspirations, and legal rights of the taxpayers and not that the taxpayers' legal rights have to be tailor-made in accordance with the software being used by the Tax Department.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has held that as the petitioners have paid the taxes, they should be given credit for the challans paid on Form 3 under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act (DTVSV Act). The order/communication rejecting credit of taxes deposited under the DTVSV on the hyper-technical ground that challans have been deposited under the minor head '200' instead of '400' is unfair, illegal, and contrary to the objective of enacting the DTVSV Act.

Case Title: SRF Ltd. versus Union of India

Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 714

The Delhi High Court has directed the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) to issue reports on the expenditure incurred by the assessee SRF Ltd. for the relevant assessment years in Form 3CL within six weeks.

The Division Bench of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the DSIR is statutorily bound to issue the Form 3CL within 120 days in accordance with Rule 6(7A) (ba) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, certifying the expenditure incurred by the assessee on its in-house R&D units.

Bombay High Court

Case Title: M/s Bhatewara Associates Versus Union Of India

The Bombay High Court has condoned a year-long delay in filing the Income Tax Return (ITR) over "genuine hardships."

The division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Abhay Ahuja has observed that technical considerations cannot come in the way of substantial justice. It is neither an allegation of malafide nor an allegation that the delay has been deliberate.

Case Title: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Vardhan Builders

The Bombay High Court has allowed the income tax deduction under Section 80-IB on the grounds that a completion certificate was issued by the competent authority.

The division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Valmiki S.A. Menezes, while upholding the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), observed that there was no allegation by the survey team during the earlier survey conducted in the year 2006 that the assessee was not raising the construction as per the approved plan. It was also held that if there was any modification to a completed residential unit for which a completion certificate had been issued by the competent authority, the assessee could not be held responsible.

Case Title: Chowgule & Company (P) Ltd. Versus JCIT

The Bombay High Court at Goa has held that failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts is an essential jurisdictional parameter that must be fulfilled before any notice can be issued for reopening the assessment proceedings after the expiration of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year.

The division bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Bharat P. Deshpande has observed that in the absence of any allegation or a plain statement about compliance with the jurisdictional parameter, the reassessment notice cannot be ordinarily sustained.

Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax versus Trigent Software Limited

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the expenditure incurred on development of a new product, in respect of the same business already carried on by the assessee, which subsequently failed to come into existence and was abandoned, is eligible for deduction as revenue expenditure.

The bench of Justices Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Abhay Ahuja observed that though the assessee had treated the expenditure incurred on development of a new product as 'Capital work in progress' in its books of accounts, however, since no new asset came into existence which would be of an enduring benefit to the assessee, the expenditure incurred was revenue and not capital in nature.

Case Title: Shailesh Shah, Legal Heir of Late Shri Ramniklal Harilal Shah Versus The Income Tax Officer

The Bombay High Court has held that a reassessment notice against a dead person would be invalid unless the legal representatives submit to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer without raising any objection.

The division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Valmiki Sa Menezes has observed that where the legal representatives do not waive their right to a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, it cannot be said that the notice issued against the dead person is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the Income Tax Act.

Case Title: PCIT Versus IFFCO LTD

The Delhi High Court has held that the dividends received by Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative (IFFCO) from Oman India Fertiliser Company S.A.O.C (OMIFCO) Oman cannot be disallowed under the Income Tax Act.

Madras High Court

Case Title: K.Balasubramaniam v. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation and others (batch cases)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 524

The Madras High Court recently upheld the validity of the Government Order issued by Tamil Nadu's Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department and the consequential resolutions of Greater Chennai Corporation and Coimbatore Corporation by which the property taxes in Chennai and Coimbatore were revised and increased.

Case Title: Murali Krishna Chakrala Versus Deputy Director,

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 495

The Madras High Court has held that the chartered accountant (CA) is not required to go into the genuineness or otherwise of the documents submitted by his clients.

"A Panel Advocate, who has no means to go into the genuinity of title deeds and who gives an opinion based on such title deeds, cannot be prosecuted along with the principal offender. Applying the same anomaly, we find that the prosecution of Murali Krishna Chakrala, in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, cannot be sustained," the division bench of Justice P. N. Prakash and Justice G. Chandrasekharan observed.

Case Title: Molasi Primary Agricultural Versus ITO

The Madras High Court has held that the TDS exemption under Section 194N of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to cash withdrawal by primary agricultural credit co-operative societies.

The bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has noted that the provisions of Section 194 N provide for a mandatory deduction of 2% of cash withdrawals and the object is to discourage and drive the move toward a cashless or cash-free economy.

Case Title: Tax Recovery Officer Versus Union Bank of India

The Madras High Court has held that the orders of attachment passed by the Tax Recovery Officer or Income Tax Department were subsequent to the mortgage created in favour of the secured creditors and have no legs.

The division bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has observed that even if recovery proceedings are quashed for any reason, the bankers' and financial institutions' rights to claim priority in terms of Section 31 B of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act and Section 26 E of the SARFAESI Act would still be available. The right to recover under the Income Tax Act, of 1961, must yield to the provisions under the SARFAESI Act and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, and thus, the exercise of attachment may not serve any useful purpose.

Case Title: RKR. Gold P. Ltd Versus ACIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 444

The Madras High Court has held that the criminal investigation wing is separate and distinct from the assessment wing and that disclosure made before one wing will not exonerate the assessee from the requirement of making a "full and true disclosure" before the assessing officer in an assessment.

Case Title: The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- 4 Versus Kumar Builders Consortium

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 265

The Bombay High Court has upheld the order of the ITAT directing the Assessing Officer to work out the pro rata deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Abhay Ahuja has observed that Section 80IB(10) nowhere even remotely aims to deny the benefit of deduction in regard to a residential unit, which otherwise confirms the requirement of size at the cost of an ineligible residential unit with a built-up area of more than 1500 sq. ft.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Case Title: Sonalben Alias Charmiben Hirenbhai Jivani Versus Naranbhai Chananbhai Babariya

The Gujarat High Court has held that an income tax return (ITR) filed prior to the death of the assessee is the basis for computation of loss of future income, including future prospects.

The single bench of Justice Gita Gopi has observed that both the parents are dependents of the deceased son and are entitled to apply for compensation. Both the parents are entitled to the compensation amount under the head of dependency loss.

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.

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.

Case Title: Piyush Ambalal Gandhi Versus DCIT

The Gujarat High Court has held that the reassessment powers could not be exercised either for the purpose of reverification or to have a merry sailing for a rowing inquiry.

The division bench of Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Bhargav D. Karia has observed that the assessing officer wanted to undertake a fishing inquiry in relation to an issue about which he had already solicited information and examined it.

Case Title: Map Refoils India Ltd. Versus National Faceless E-Assessment Center

The Gujarat High Court has quashed the assessment order of income tax worth Rs. 101 crores on the grounds of a violation of the principle of natural justice by the National Faceless Assessment Center.

The division bench of Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Bhargav D. Karia has observed that the respondent/department will be at liberty to proceed with assessment under the provisions of Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as permissible under the law, after issuance of a show cause notice and draft assessment order so as to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Case Title: Devendra Babulal Jain versus Income Tax Officer

The Gujarat High Court has ruled that the Directors of the assessee company cannot be held negligent merely because they failed to deposit before the Assessing Officer 20% of the demand raised, so as to seek stay of demand during the pendency of an appeal before the CIT(A). Thus, the Court held that jurisdiction under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding the Directors of the assessee company liable to pay the company's outstanding tax dues, could not have been invoked by the Income Tax Authorities.

Rajasthan High Court

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.

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.

Case Title: Pooja Agarwal Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-1

The Rajasthan High Court has held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) is the last fact-finding authority and is bound to follow the directions issued by the High Court in pith and substance.

Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Prashant Chandra Versus Harish Gidwani Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 2

The Allahabad High Court ruled that the outstanding amount showing on the web portal against the applicant/assessee was to be deleted immediately following the judgment, but the authorities allowed the outstanding amount to remain on the web portal for seven months, clearly violating the judgment.

The single bench of Justice Irshad Ali has imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000 along with simple imprisonment for a period of one week on the contemnor who was the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. In case of default, the contemnor would suffer one day's further simple imprisonment.

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.

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.

Case Title: Nidhi Agarhari Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others

The Allahabad High Court has held that the department has practically refused to comply with the directions of the Court and has shown misconduct and a flagrant breach of the principles of judicial discipline and propriety.

The division bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerji has observed that the conduct of the department may require the imposition of an exemplary cost and the initiation of appropriate proceedings. However, one opportunity is afforded to the department to file the personal affidavit within one week and show cause as to why an exemplary cost may not be imposed upon them for showing misconduct.

Case Title: Nabco Products Private Limited versus Union of India and Ors.

The Allahabad High Court has criticized the Income Tax Authorities for frequently violating the principles of natural justice. The Court ruled that the harassment caused to the assessees and the breach of principles of natural justice by the Income Tax Officers has become uncontrolled due to the absence of an effective system of accountability of the erring officers.

The Bench of Justices Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Jayant Banerji directed the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to take steps to remove the shortcomings in the computerisation system controlled by it and to develop a system of accountability among the erring officers and employees of the revenue department.

Case Title: SR Cold Storage versus Union of India and Ors.

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 374

The Allahabad High Court has directed that the Union of India or other authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall not interfere with the quasi-judicial functions and discharge of statutory duties by the Assessing Officers unless permitted by the Income Tax Act.

Further, the High Court directed the Union of India to put in place a mechanism to ensure that the information fed on data-base/ portal of the revenue department is verified in reality, and not as an empty formality, before initiating proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Case Title: Vikas Gupta Versus Union Of India

The Allahabad High Court has held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) has not recorded satisfaction under his signature prior to the issuance of a reassessment notice by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act, 1961.

The division bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Chandra Kumar Rai has observed that subsequent to the issuance of the reassessment notice by the Assessing Officer, the satisfaction under section 151 was digitally signed by the Prescribed Authority. Therefore, at the point of time when the Assessing Officer issued notices, he had no jurisdiction to issue the reassessment notices. Consequently, the notices issued by the Assessing Officer under section 148 were without jurisdiction.

Calcutta High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus Sreeleathers

The Calcutta High Court has held that the income tax department cannot unreasonably reject proof submitted by the assessee.

The division bench of Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Bivas Pattanayak noted that the assessing officer brushed aside the explanation offered by the assessee by stating that merely filing PAN details and a balance sheet does not absolve the assessee from his responsibilities of proving the nature of transactions.

Case Title: Purulia Metal Casting Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Purulia Charge & Ors.

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin has held that the right to file a statutory appeal is mandatory before initiating any recovery proceeding.

Case Title: Maharaja Edifice Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice T.S. Shivagnanam and Justice Bivas Pattanayak has held that failure to furnish information based on which assessment was reopened is a violation of principles of natural justice.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Case Title: CIT Versus B.P. Poddar Foundation For Education

The Calcutta High Court has held that the foundation of a reassessment proceeding is a valid notice, and if the notice is held to be invalid, the entire edifice sought to be raised has to collapse.

The division bench of T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya have observed that the assessing officer is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time, the noticee is entitled to file their objection to the notice, and the assessing officer is bound to dispose of it by passing a speaking order.

Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Parmesh Chand Yadav Versus Income Tax Officer

The Rajasthan High Court has held that the reassessment notice cannot be challenged if the assessee failed to submit crypto currency account transactions to the income tax department.

The division bench of Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Shubha Mehta held that bank transactions alone are not sufficient to verify the trade in crypto currency. The assessee ought to have submitted before the department the relevant ledger statement evidencing that he had entered into trade of crypto currency in the manner as has been asserted by him by way of the information stated by him.

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.

Case Title: SS Commotrade Private Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer

The Calcutta High Court has held that the issuance of notice and initiation of reassessment proceedings were beyond 6 years. Prima facie, it is barred by limitation both under the old Act as well as under the newly amended provision relating to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The single bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin has observed that the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case for an interim order by raising the issue of the jurisdiction of the assessing officer in initiating the reassessment proceeding.

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.

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

Case Title: C Joseph Vijay v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others

Case No: WP No. 21006 of 2022

The Madras High Court on Tuesday granted an interim stay on the proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Department against Actor Vijay for "admitted" undisclosed income of Rs. 15 crore in the financial year 2015-16.

The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth passed the interim order on an application filed by the actor and directed the Department to file its counter by September 16.

Case Title: M/s. Dishnet Wireless Limited versus the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 278

The Madras High Court has ruled that proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 cannot dilute the rights of the Income Tax Department to reopen the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court noted that the Resolution Plan submitted by the assessee did not contemplate any concession from the Income Tax Department, even though notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued to the assessee prior to the submission of the Resolution Plan.

Case Title: Charu K. Bagadia Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-23(2), Mumbai

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 292

The Madras High Court invalidated the reassessment procedures on the basis that the reopening of the income tax assessment was conducted by an officer without jurisdiction.

The division bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice J.Sathya Narayana Prasad has observed that the ACIT Mumbai, who recorded the reasons for reopening the assessment, has no jurisdiction over the appellant, to issue a notice dated 28.03.2018. Though the files pertaining to the reassessment proceedings of the appellant were transferred, the ACIT Chennai has no authority to continue the reassessment proceedings. Hence, the notice issued by him was also held to be invalid.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Case Title: M/s.EIH Associated Hotels Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 385

The Madras High Court has quashed the reassessment proceedings and held that an audit objection does not satisfy the requirement of the Assessing Officer having an independent "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment, that too after the elapse of nearly six years.

The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that all materials with regard to the computation of tax under the provisions of MAT were available before the Assessing Authority during the original assessment proceedings.

Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax vs MAC Public Charitable Trust & Others

The Madras High Court has lifted the corporate veil of the educational institution for collecting involuntary capitation fees.

Kerala High Court

Case Title: Special Tahsildar Versus Union Of India

The Kerala High Court has held that where there is no liability to deduct TDS, the mere fact that TDS was so deducted and paid to the Income Tax Department belatedly, cannot give rise to a claim for interest under Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act.

Income Tax Act does not impose any limitation for filing an application for condonation of delay: Kerala High Court

Case Title: K C Antony Versus Principal Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 598

The Kerala High Court has held that Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act does not impose any limitation for the purposes of filing an application for condonation of delay.

The single bench of Justice Gopinath P. has observed that it was completely wrong on the part of the department to treat the date of filing of the application for condonation of delay as the relevant date for the purpose of considering whether it was filed within 6 years or not.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

Case Title: M/s. D.P.J. Bidar-Chincholi (Annuity) Road Project Pvt Ltd.

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect and Customs (CBIC) clarifying that GST is not exempt on the annuity (deferred payments) paid for the construction of roads and allowed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner.

The single bench of Justice M.I. Arun observed that a circular which clarifies the notification cannot have the effect of overruling the notification.

Case Title: M/S. Flipkart Internet Private Limited versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation) and Ors.

The Karnataka High Courthas directed the Income Tax Department to issue a 'Nil Tax Deduction at Source' Certificate to Flipkart under Section 195(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with respect to the reimbursements made by it to Walmart Inc.

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.

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.

Case Title: Agrawal Petrolium Co. Vs PCIT

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Prakash Chandra Gupta has held that the reassessment order was passed without considering the reply to the show cause notice and directed the department to pass a fresh order.

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.”

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

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.

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

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

Rejection Of Appeal For Restoration Of GST Registration - Delay Of 1 Day Is Hyper Technical: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Sunil Kumar Vij Versus Union Of India

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the rejection of an appeal for the restoration of GST registration for a delay of 1 day is hyper-technical.

The division bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Virender Singh has allowed the claim of the petitioner, stating that the view taken by the appellate authority is quite hyper-technical and academic and that rejecting the appeal for a delay of one day is in gross violation of the principle of natural justice and that cancellation would prevent the fundamental right of doing business.

Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus The Kangra Central Co-op Bank Ltd.

(Video) 100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2022 - PART-2

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the non-scheduled bank was required to tax the interest on the sticky loans and non-performing assets (NPAs) on a receipt basis.

The division bench of Justice Sabina and Justice Sushil Kukreja has observed that an amendment to Section 43D by Finance Act, 2017 was made by which the scope of section 43D to Co-operative Banks was extended. Although the amendment was sought to take effect on April 1, 2018, it was likely to be treated as retrospective in nature.

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

Case Title: Abdul Majeed Versus Income Tax Officer

The Rajasthan High Court has held that the authority is required to reach satisfaction that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment but in cases where three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the order under Section 148A for issuance of notice could be passed if there were no statutory impediment as contained in Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act.

The division bench of Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastav and Justice Shubha Mehta has observed that the department failed to place before the Court any material to suggest that the income exceeding Rs. 50,00,000 chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, which would warrant issuance of an order under Section 148A(d) followed by issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.

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.

Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: New India Assurance Company Limited versus Ravinder Kumar @ Vickey and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 227

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the Insurance Company is not required to deduct TDS on the interest on the compensation awarded to the claimant uptil 01.06.2015, even if the interest amount exceeds Rs. 50,000 per claimant in the financial year.

The Single Bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan reiterated that 194A of Income Tax Act, 1961 is not a charging provision and hence, the provisions of Section 194A that deal with tax deducted at source, do not make the interest income chargeable to tax if it is otherwise not taxable.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Case Title: Essel Mining & Industries Limited Versus Dy. CIT

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the sale of renewable energy certificates (carbon credit) of income received by the assessee is a capital receipt.

The two-member bench of Kuldip Singh (Judicial Member) and Gagan Goyal (Accountant Member) has observed that the sale of carbon credit could not be a business receipt or income, nor is it directly linked with the business of the assessee, nor any asset is generated in the course of business, but it is generated due to environmental concern.

Case Title: C. R. Dadhich Memorial Society Versus CIT(E)

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 held that the assessee is eligible for registration under section 12AA of the Income Tax Act for imparting skill development, which is akin to providing education.

Case Title: Sasamusa sugar works pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT

The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), consisting of Aby T Varkey (Judicial Member) and Girish Agarwal (Accountant Member), has directed the assessing officer to allow the depreciation on molasses tanks by making the correct computation of new assets.

Case Title: DCIT versus M/s. Cummins Sales & Services (I) Ltd.

The Pune Bench of ITAT has ruled that the mere fact that the scheme of demerger or amalgamation was approved by the High Court, does not automatically entitle the assessee to claim the set-off of brought forward business losses relating to the demerged or amalgamating undertaking.

The Bench, consisting of S. S. Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial Member) and Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member), held that Section 72A (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been enacted empowering the Assessing Officer to deny the benefit of set-off of brought forward business losses, and hence, merely because the scheme of demerger was approved by the High Court would not ipso facto entitle the assessee to the benefit of set-off, if the scheme was contrary to the objects behind the enactment of the provisions of Section 72A.

The Delhi Bench of ITAT has ruled that fees paid by the assesssee to a non-resident for providing services of introduction of clients would fall in the definition of payments made to an intermediary and the same cannot be said to be a technical service.

The Bench, consisting of Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member) and Shamim Yahya (Accountant Member), held that the remittances made by the assessee to its intermediary for providing client referral services would not come within the scope of 'fees for technical services' (FTS) under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that the same was a normal business payment.

Case Title: The DCIT Versus M/s. Sidhanath Enterprise

The Rajkot Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), consisting of TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), has ruled that the cash deposits related to the Shroff business are not an undisclosed income.

Case Title: Add. CIT Versus M/s Precision Bearing Pvt. Ltd.

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)has allowed the deduction and held that the expenditure incurred on trademark registration is a revenue expenditure.

The two-member bench of Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) and B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member) has ruled that the amendment in section 32 of the Income Tax Act from A.Y. 1999-2000 which allows deprecation on various intangible assets (including trademarks) is applicable only when the cost incurred in respect of a trademark is in the nature of capital expenditure.

Case Title: Container Corporation of India Ltd. versus DCIT

The Delhi Bench of ITAT has ruled that the credit received by the assessee under the "Served From India Scheme" (SFIS) is not in the nature of income and that it does not constitute taxable income under Section 2(24) (xviii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Bench, consisting of Yogesh Kumar US (Judicial Member) and Dr. B.R.R. Kumar (Accountant Member), observed that the SFIS credit had only reduced the value of a capital asset in the books of accounts of the assessee by the amount of excise duty and that if the SFIS credit was not available, the assessee would have paid the excise duty and added the same to the cost of the asset. Hence, the ITAT ruled that there was no element of revenue or income in the SFIS credit.

Case Title: EY Global Services Ltd. versus ACIT

The Delhi Bench of ITAT has directed the revenue authorities to give effect to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in favour of EY Global Services Limited (UK) (EYGSL (UK), holding that payments received by EYGSL (UK) from its member firms in India, towards Software License and Maintenance Charges, Global Technology Charges and GWAN Connectivity Charges, are not taxable in India.

The Bench, consisting of Astha Chandra (Judicial Member) and Shamim Yahya (Accountant Member), noted that the Delhi High Court, reversing the order passed by the AAR, has held that the payment received by EYGSL (UK) for providing access to computer software to its EY member firms located in India did not amount to 'Royalty' and hence, it was not taxable in India under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the India-UK DTAA.

Case Title: DCIT Versus M/s. Cummins Sales & Services (I) Ltd.

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) consisting of S.S. Vishwanethra Ravi (Judicial Member) and Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member) has held that the benefit of section 72A of the Companies Act, 1956 cannot be availed if the sole idea of the amalgamation was only to avail the benefit of carried forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation losses as it is not for genuine purpose.

Case Title: M/s. Bigfoot Retail Solution Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted the disallowance on the grounds that the usage of telephone/internet is done for official purposes only.

The two-member bench of Astha Chandra (Judicial Member) and Anil Chaturvedi (Accountant Member) held that all telephones are either installed at office premises or used by officers and employees of the assessee company and usage of telephones and internet is done by employees for official purposes only. The expenses were incurred in the course of business of the assessee company and were not in the nature of personal expenditure.

Case Title: State Bank of India versus The Income Tax Officer

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)has refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal on the grounds that even during the period of COVID-19, the ITAT was functioning and banking facilities were provided by the State Bank of India (SBI).

The two-member bench of George George K. (Judicial Member) and Laxmi Prasad Sahu (Accountant Member) has observed that the assessee must be well aware of the tax implications. It is the duty of the responsible officer to comply with the notices. The bank's books of accounts are audited by the CA along with the internal auditors. The assessee cannot escape by giving the reason merely as a change of branch manager.

Case Title: AGM Properties P. Ltd. Versus ACIT

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that completed assessments could be interfered with by the AO while making an assessment under section 153A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search. If in relation to any assessment year, no incriminating material was found, no addition or disallowance could be made in relation to that assessment year in the exercise of powers under section 153A of the Income Tax Act.

The two-member bench of Astha Chandra (Judicial Member) and Anil Chaturvedi (Accountant Member) has observed that the assessment for AY 2013-14 was already completed prior to the date of search. The scope of proceedings under section 153A had to be confined only to material found in the course of the search.

Case Title: Karamvir Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)consisting of Saktijit Dey (Judicial Member) and B.R.R. Kumar (Accountant Member) has held that the agricultural land purchased by the assessee in the name of his wife is not eligible for deduction under section 54B of the Income Tax Act.

Case Title: Srijal Gupta Versus Income Tax Officer of Income Tax Ward 6(3)

The Amritsar Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), consisting of Anikesh Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Dr. M. L. Meena (Accountant Member), has held that the cash deposit of a firm can not be added to the personal income of the partner without investigation.

The notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act was issued against the assessee on 15.03.2013. The assessee filed his return of income declaring the NIL income as there was no income and the assessee only purchased a property. The reasons were recorded by the AO.

Case Title: Avana Global FZCO versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The Mumbai Bench of ITAT has reiterated that the activity of Inland Haulage is directly connected with the transportation of goods in international traffic and thus, Inland Haulage Charges are not taxable as business profit in India in view of Article 8 of the India-UAE DTAA (Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement).

The Bench, consisting of Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member) and Gagan Goyal (Accountant Member), held that since the activity of Inland Haulage was directly connected with the transportation of goods in international traffic, and since it was an integral part of operation of ships; hence, the Inland Haulage Charges cannot be disintegrated from profits derived from shipping business, as envisaged under Article 8 of the DTAA.

Case Title: Tata Medical Centre Trust versus Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemption)

The Kolkata Bench of the ITAT has quashed the revisionary order passed by the Income Tax Authority without quoting the Document Identification No. (DIN) in the said order, as required by the CBDT Circular No.19/2019, dated 14.08.2019.

The Bench, consisting of Mr. Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member) and Mr. Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member), held that since the order passed by the Income Tax Authority failed to mention the DIN in its body, therefore, the said order was "invalid and deemed to have never been issued", as provided under the said CBDT Circular.

Case Title: Archana Sharma Versus DCIT

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that if a loan or advance is given to a shareholder as a consequence of any consideration which is beneficial to the company, in such a case, the advance or loan cannot be said to be a deemed dividend.

The two-member bench of Astha Chandra (Judicial Member) and Anil Chaturvedi (Accountant Member) has observed that a gratuitous loan or advance given by a company to the classes of shareholders would come within the purview of a deemed dividend under section 2(22) of the Income Tax Act.

Case Title: M/s. Sulzer Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Addl./Jt./Dy./Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has observed that the TPO was not justified in treating the value of international transactions "Payment of Corporate IT Support Services" as NIL.

The two-member bench headed by Pramod Kumar (Vice President) and Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) has observed that no search was conducted to find out the independent entity in a comparable transaction and the arm's length price of the international transaction was treated to be Nil.

Case Title: Air India Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

The Mumbai Bench of ITAT has ruled that Air India must be given the benefit of the Proviso to Section 201 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and hence, it cannot be considered as an assessee in default for shortfall in deduction of TDS on the payments made by it to its subsidiary - Air India Engineering Services Ltd.

The Bench, consisting of Kavitha Rajagopal (Judicial Member) and Baskaran B.R. (Accountant Member), remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for examining the claim of Air India for availing the benefit of the Proviso to Section 201 (1), as per which an assessee shall not be treated as an assessee in default, if the conditions specified therein are complied with.

Case Title: Dilip B. Mundada Versus The Dy.CIT

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that for availing the benefit of deduction under section 54F, the new asset shall be purchased in the name of the assessee.

The two-member bench of S.S.Godara (Judicial Member) and Dipak P. Ripote (Accountant Member) has observed that section 54F does not say that the assessee shall invest in the new house, but it says the assessee shall purchase a new house. The assessee claimed that the amount for the flat was invested by him. However, it was factually incorrect. As per the documents, the payments for the flat were made by his wife.

Case Title: Nekkanti Systems Private Limited versus Income Tax Officer, Ward – 16(2), Hyderabad

The Hyderabad Bench of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that trading losses sustained by the directors of the assessee company in their individual accounts, cannot be allowed as deduction in the hands of the assessee company.

The Bench, consisting of members Laliet Kumar (Judicial Member) and Rama Kanta Panda (Accountant Member), held that as per the Companies Act, 2013 and the Income Tax Act, 1961, the company and its directors are two distinct juristic entities, and the act done by the directors in their individual capacity cannot be said to be an act on behalf of the company.

Case Title: Ramesh Chander Nijhawan Versus ACIT

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench has held that the capital gain exemption is allowable even when the amount invested in a capital gain account is utilised for the purchase of a new house without a NOC from AO within 2 years.

The two-member bench of Saktijit Dey (Judicial Member) and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar (Accountant Member) has allowed the expenditure incurred of Rs. 1,65,000, being the commission incurred for the purchase of a residential house and payment made for the deed writer.

Case Title: Shri Adit Rathi Versus I.T.O.

The Pune Bench of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), consisting of Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member) and Dipak P. Ripote (Accountant Member), has ruled that the legislature has nowhere incorporated that for claiming the deduction under section 54B of the Income Tax Act, the lands re-purchased have to be agricultural on the date of re-investment.

Case Title: Ms. Ritu Jain Versus Income Tax Officer

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted the addition and held that the cash gifts received by the assessee from her close relatives to treat her husband suffering from cancer cannot be treated as "unexplained".

The bench of Anil Chaturvedi (Accountant Member) has observed that the assessee discharged her initial onus by proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the AO cannot insist on the assessee proving the source of the source.

Case Title: Bai Navajbai Tata Zoroastrian Girls School versus Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that the Income Tax Authorities cannot impose additional conditions beyond the scheme of law while granting registration to charitable institutions and trusts under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Bench, consisting of Pramod Kumar (Vice President) and Aby T Varkey (Judicial Member), held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) plays a limited role under Section 12AB (1), while granting registration to the trust/institution under Section 12A, and the CIT cannot supplement the law by laying down the conditions which are not a part of the scheme of registration visualized by law.

The two-member bench of Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member) and Girish Aggarwal (Accountant Member) observed that there was no reference to the fact that the order was issued manually without a DIN for which the written approval of the Chief Commissioner/Director General of Income-tax was required to be obtained in the prescribed format in terms of the CBDT circular. In terms of the CBDT circular, the lapse renders the order invalid and deemed to have never been issued.

Case Title: Mandheshwari Urban Development Bank Ltd. Versus ACIT

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) of the Pune Bench struck down the addition made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act for the non-deduction of TDS on interest paid on deposits received from nominal members of the society.

The two-member bench of S. S. Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial Member) and Inturi Rama Rao have observed that the cooperative bank is also a species of cooperative society, and is entitled to the benefit of the general exemption provided to all cooperative societies from the deduction of tax on payment of interest to its members.

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the compensation with interest received by the assessee up to the date of land acquisition should be taxed under the head "Capital Gains".

The two-member bench of Amit Shukla (Judicial Member) and Gagan Goyal (Accountant Member) has observed that the interest paid to the assessee for any delay in payment of the compensation from the date of acquisition of the property should be taxed under the head "Income from other sources".

Case Title: Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. Versus The JCIT

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the claim of loss arising from investment in equity shares, non-convertible debentures and zero coupon redeemable preference shares is not a capital loss. The loss is eligible for deduction in the computation of business income as a business loss.

The two-member bench of Mahavir Singh (Vice-President) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) has observed that for the sale of shares and the amount advanced by the assessee to various industries towards working capital, the real character of the transaction was those akin to loans and not equity investment.

Case Title: Gyanendra Singh Shekhawat Versus The ACIT

The Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted the addition made on "Streedhan" based on social status.

The two-member bench of Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member) and Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai (Accountant Member) has observed that the AO failed to verify that the assessee was living with his parents and belonged to a Rajput family where the fact of having jewellery as Streedhan by the assessee's mother and wife cannot be ignored. Keeping in view of high status, family tradition, deduction on account of purity and the deduction towards Streedhan, the excess jewellery found was nominal.

Case Title: Muppavarapu Kavitha, Vijayawada Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

Case Title: DJS Stock and Shares Ltd. Versus DCIT

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)has allowed the deduction of the penalty levied by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) for a shortfall in margin money.

The bench of B.R. Baskaran (Accountant Member) has observed that the penalty levied by SEBI for shortfall in margin money cannot be considered as a penalty for violation of any law falling within the ambit of section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.

Case Title: Universal Energies Ltd. Versus DCIT

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that interest payment on late payment of TDS is not an eligible business expenditure for deduction and it is not compensatory in nature.

The two-member bench of A. D. Jain (Vice President) and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar (Accountant Member) has observed that the payment of interest on late deposit of TDS levied u/s 201(1A) is neither an expenditure only and exclusively incurred for the purpose of the business nor a deduction under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.

Case Title: M/s. Altisource Business Solutions Private Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC, Delhi

The Banglore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the gain or loss arising out of a change in the foreign exchange rate can be treated as an income or loss provided that it is computed in accordance with the Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) notified under section 145(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The two-member bench of George George K. (Judicial Member) and Padmavathi S. (Accountant Member) observed that the amount claimed is a net loss after considering the foreign exchange gains arising in certain transactions and that the assessee has also submitted the invoice-wise details of foreign exchange loss and gain. The foreign exchange loss claimed by the assessee is an allowable expenditure.

Case Title: M/s. Balkrishna Live Stock Breeders Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that the expense of carrying out foreign travel directly relating to securing capital investment in the assessee's business cannot be in the revenue nature. On the other hand, it is capitalist in nature.

The two-member bench of Beena Pillai (Judicial Member) and Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member) has observed that the assessee furnished only the supplementary agreement with the above party and did not furnish the main agreement also. It can be inferred that the assessee wanted to hide the real intention of going abroad to go to foreign countries and incur expenditure.

Case Title: ACIT Versus M/s Hare Krishna Orchid

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the non-existence of the parties who have given loans to the assessee is a clear indication of their nature being prima facie bogus.

The two-member bench of Yogesh Kumar US (Judicial Member) and Shamim Yahya (Accountant Member) has observed that in the entire proceeding, there is no discussion about the loan documentation and terms of condition of the loan, the issue of TDS, and nothing has been examined.

Case Title: The Rewari Central Co- operative Bank Ltd. Versus Directorate of Income Tax, (I & CI)

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed the penalty on the grounds that the delay in the late filing of the Statement of Financial Transaction (SFT) return was not deliberate.

The two-member bench of Yogesh Kumar (Judicial Member) and Shamim Yahya (Accountant Member) observed that an order imposing a penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding. The penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of the law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation.

Case Title: Dy. Commissioner Income Tax (E)-1(1) Versus M/s. Karuna Medical Society

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) consisting of Rahul Choudhary (Judicial Member) and M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member) has held that the activity of a chemist or pharmacy is incidental or ancillary to the dominant object of running a hospital.

Case Title: DZ Bank versus DCIT (International Taxation)

The Mumbai Bench of ITAT has ruled that where the assessee has no TDS certificate available with it, it is required to discharge its responsibility of proving whether TDS was deducted by the payer of income or not in order to avail credit of TDS. The Tribunal ruled that the onus is on the assessee to substantiate its claim of tax deducted at source on the payments received by it.

The Bench, consisting of Rahul Chaudhary (Judicial Member) and Om Prakash Kant (Accountant Member), reiterated that the assessee should be provided credit of TDS deducted by the payer of income, irrespective of whether the TDS was deposited by the deductor into the government account or not.

Case Title: M/s.HP India Sales Private Versus The Joint Commissioner of Income-tax

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that customs duty is allowable only on a payment basis under section 43B of the Income Tax Act. The interest levied on arrears or late payment of customs duty is also allowable on an actual payment basis under section 43B.

The two-member bench of George George K (Judicial Member) and Laxmi Prasad Sahu (Accountant Member) has directed the AO to verify the nature of the levy of interest on customs duty and decide the allowability of deduction.

Case Title: Ghaus Memorial Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. Versus ACIT

The Allahabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has sustained the addition as the assessee failed to explain the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transaction.

The two-member bench of Vijay Pal Rao (Judicial Member) and Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member) has observed that fresh deposits being advanced for land from members raised by the assessee were in the form of cash credits, which are recorded in the assessee's books of accounts. The onus is on the assessee to explain the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction .

Case Title: ITO Versus Shri Suresh Prasad

The Patna Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the compensation received in respect of an award or agreement has been exempt from the levy of income tax as per section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act).

The two-member bench of Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member) and Manish Borad (Accountant Member) has observed that no distinction was made between compensation received for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land and non-agricultural land in the matter of providing exemption from income tax under the RFCTLARR Act.

Case Title: The JCIT(OSD) versus General CO.OP Bank Ltd.

The Ahmedabad Bench of the ITAT has ruled that the sum received by a bank who is under liquidation, and whose statutory liability to repay the Deposit, Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation of India (DICGCI) is not fully satisfied, is not taxable since all the income received by the assessee bank is diverted at source.

The Bench of Members T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) held that in view of the mandatory condition contained in Section 21 (2) of the DICGCI Act, till the liability of the assessee towards the DICGCI is cleared, the assessee bank has no discretion or authority to apply the funds received by it and that all the funds realized by the bank is diverted at source.

Case Title: Google India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed the TDS default order passed against Google India on the grounds that it was time barred.

The two-member bench of George George K. (Judicial Member) and Padmavathy S. (Accountant Member) has observed that for the years under consideration, the period of four years from the end of the financial year in which payment was made or credit was given expired on 31.03.2012, whereas the notice was issued by the AO on 20.11.2012.

Case Title: M/s. NDTV Studios Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the business of the NDTV Studios had not been set up during the assessment year 2009- 2010 and all the expenses claimed by the assessee were pre-operative in nature, which should have been capitalised.

The two-member bench of Yogesh Kumar U.S. (Judicial Member) and N.K.Billaiya (Accountant Member) has observed that the expenses claimed by the assessee are not deductible as business expenditure and have been disallowed.

Case Title: M/s. Think and Learn Private Limited versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 3, Bengaluru

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that an assessment order passed by an Assessing Officer, deciding on an issue pending before the AAR, in contravention of the mandate laid down in Section 245R(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would not make the entire assessment order void.

The Bench of N. V. Vasudevan (Vice President) and Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member) held that merely because the additions made by the Assessing Officer were challengeable by the assessee before the appellate authorities, for being in contravention to the provisions of Section 245R(2)(i), it cannot be a ground to hold that the interest of the Revenue was prejudiced in order to exercise revisionary powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.

Case Title: M/s. Infosys BPO Limited Versus DCIT

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that TDS is not deductible on training fees paid to professional trainers as it does not amount to fees for technical services.

The two-member bench headed by N.V. Vasudevan (Vice-President) and Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member) have observed that the nature of service rendered by the non-resident is neither in the nature of technical, managerial, or consultancy service. The nature of service rendered clearly shows that the services rendered by non-residents cannot be termed as technical services for the mere reason that technology is used in providing service. The delivery of a service via technological means does not make the service technical.

Case Title: M/s. Mangalam Arts Govind Nagar (East) Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

The Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that when litigation expenditure is incurred to protect the business, the same is revenue expenditure.

The two-member bench of Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member) and Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbahi (Accountant Member) has observed that since the assessee has no interest in the ownership of the asset but he is in possession of the asset for conducting its business, the litigation expenditure incurred is only to protect his business and, therefore, it is revenue expenditure. The litigation expenditure incurred by the assessee is revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure.

Case Title: DCIT Versus Heera Lal Bhasin Legal Heir

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed the claim of a deduction under section 54 of the Act for a residential house built on three adjacent contiguous plots. The principle of multiple residential houses/units holds good till the units are in the same physical location and contiguous to each other.

The two-member bench of Astha Chandra (Judicial Member) and Shamim Yahya (Accountant Member) has observed that the assessee sold his house in Delhi, which was falling short of his needs, and constructed a house on three separate plots adjoining each other to enable him to have a house for himself which could accommodate all his family members and the families of his children. The intention of the assessee was to acquire one large piece of land for the construction of a large residential house. Therefore, three similar units were constructed contiguous to each other in a single common compound wall.

Case Title: M/s. Geo Connect Ltd. versus DCIT

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that no disallowances can be made under Section 40A (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for payments made otherwise than by way of account payee cheques or bank drafts for purchase of agricultural land, where the seller of the agricultural land has insisted on payment in cash.

The Bench of Saktijit Dey (Judicial Member) and Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant Member) observed that considerations of business expediency and other relevant factors, which provide an exception to Section 40A(3), have not been diluted even after the amendment of Rule 6DD(j) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

Case Title: Dhan Housing and Habitat Development of Poor for Empowerment Confederation versus CIT (Exemptions)

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that grant of housing credit by the assessee trust to the lower strata of society, financed solely through the funds borrowed from financial institutions, is not a charitable activity and thus the assessee cannot be registered as a Charitable Trust under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Bench of Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) held that the activity undertaken by the assessee trust was purely a money lending activity and though the objective of the assessee was noble, it was not eligible for registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act.

Case Title: JCIT Versus M/s. Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd.

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)consisting of Aby T. Varkey (Judicial Member) and Gagan Goyal (Accountant Member) has held that the voluntary contributions received from the members of the club towards infrastructure facilities were contributions received for a specific purpose and should be treated as a capital receipt.

The assessee submitted that the issue regarding the treatment of entrance fees received from the members was held by the AO as revenue receipts, whereas the assessee's claim was that it was a capital receipt, so not taxable. The assessee was aggrieved by the action of the AO and preferred an appeal before the CIT (A), who upheld the claim of the assessee and held it to be a capital receipt.

Case Title: M/s. Mohammad Bhai Esufali & Sons Versus ITO

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed the wastage loss due to diesel and petrol tank breakage.

The two-member bench headed by R.S.Syal (Vice President) has observed that where the assessee demonstrates specific reasons for excess wastage/evaporation, such reasons cannot be thrown to the dustbin. They need to be examined on a case-by-case basis.

Case Title: Federation of Delhi Textile Merchants Versus Income Tax Officer

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that serving liquor is not a charitable activity and the income tax exemption cannot be granted.

The two-member bench of Yogesh Kumar (Judicial Member) and Shamim Yahaya (Accountant Member) has observed that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has relied on various bills of the Appellant wherein the service of liquor has been mentioned. However, CIT(A) has not mentioned the details of the clarification/reply given by the appellant in the order and has not adjudicated the reply.

Case Title: Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax versus M/s. Univercell Telecommunications India Pvt. Ltd.

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that, where a goodwill is acquired by incurring cost and it is transferred at book value, no tax can be levied on transfer of the goodwill despite withdrawal of exemption on capital gains tax on conversion of a sole proprietary concern into a company, for violation of the conditions provided in Section 47(xiv)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Bench of V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and G. Manjunatha (Accountant Member) held that if the goodwill is acquired by incurring cost and is not self-generated, and if after considering the cost incurred, the capital gains on transfer of the said goodwill amounts to 'nil', then even after invoking Section 47A(3) of the Income Tax Act, there can be no liability with respect to capital gains on conversion of the proprietary concern into a company .

Case Title: DCIT Versus M/s Expeditors International [I] Pvt. Ltd

The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the payments to agents of foreign shipping companies are exempt from TDS deduction.

The two-member bench of Saktijit Dey (Judicial Member) and N.K.Billaiya (Accountant Member) has observed that provisions of section 172 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 apply to payments made to agents of foreign shipping companies; therefore, provisions of section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 do not apply.

Case Title: ANI Technologies Private Limited Versus DCIT

The Chandigarh Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that Ola is not liable to deduct withholding TDS on the payments to drivers.

The two-member bench of Sudhanshu Shrivastava (Judicial Member) and Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) has observed that the AO and the CIT(A) erred in concluding that the assessee was providing transportation services which were subcontracted to the driver and, consequently, the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source while disbursing fare to the driver.

Case Title: Sunny Rock Estates & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the AO is not justified in disallowing the claim of interest expense and treating it for capitalization in the project cost.

The two-member bench of Rajpal Yadav (Vice President) and Girish Aggarwal (Accountant Member) has directed the AO to allow the claim of interest expenses of Rs.41,06,890.

Case Title: Mr. Mohammad Rafiq Ahemadsaheb Kokani Versus The Income Tax Officer

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed the income tax exemption under Section 54B even when the land was cultivated only for a few days during the relevant years.

The two-member bench of S.S. Vishwanethra Ravi (Judicial Member) and Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member)has observed that part of the land could not be used for agricultural purposes but grass was grown owing to the conditions of drought. It does not disentitle the assessee as the land was held for agricultural purposes only.

The Kolkata Bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ordered no TDS on payment of fees for technical services (FTS) to non-residents not having a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India.

The two-member bench of Rajpal Yadav (Vice President) and Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member) has observed that the payment made to non-resident recipients not having any permanent establishment in India and also that the services provided are not in the nature of royalty and fee for technical services.

Case Title: ITO (E) Versus Sports Good Export Promotion Council

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the assessee is not free to use the funds voluntarily as per its own whims and fancies and that the same has to be spent as per the terms and conditions of the grant.

The two-member bench of Yogesh Kumar U.S. (Judicial Member) and Shamim Yahya (Technical Member) has observed that the grants are given specifically for participation in a particular event held abroad. The grant approval includes a condition that a separate account for the projects has to be maintained. The assessee has utilised the funds as per the terms and conditions of the grant. The grants are not to be utilised for any other purpose than for which they are issued and also that the execution of the project is not to be entrusted to any other organisation. Further, the up-spent grant along with 10% interest from the date of release of the fund has to be reimbursed by the government.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Case Title: Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Visnagar Taluka Majoor Sahakari Mandli Limited

Citation: ITA Nos.1529 & 1530/Ahd/2019

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act on the credit facilities given by the co-operative society to its members as they were directly related to the business while deriving interest.

According to the two-member bench of Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) and Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), unlike Nationalised Banks, co-operative credit societies/cooperative banks have different setups where deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) is allowable when the interest is derived from credit provided to their members.

Case Title: Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Prakash Chandra Mishra

The Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that an equalisation levy is not payable on advertising payments where advertisers or the target audience are located outside India.

The two-member bench of Dr. S. Seethalakshmi (Judicial Member) and Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai (Accountant Member) have observed that when the intention of the levy is related to the targeted audience and the party paying the online advertisement has no relation in India, the Equalisation Levy is not attracted.

Case Title: Dudhsagar Research & Development Association versus ACIT(Exemption)

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that the Cess received by a trust from the milk supplying societies, against the sales made by them to the Cooperative Milk Producers Union, cannot qualify as a "Corpus Donation" under the Income Tax Act, 1961, since they are not voluntary in nature.

The Bench of Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) observed that the assessee trust- Dudhsagar Research & Development Association, passed a suo moto resolution to collect donations in the form of Cess from the milk societies, which depended on the quantity of milk fat supplied by them. Holding that the donors had no discretion in computing the quantum of Cess, the Tribunal ruled that merely producing a receipt which states that a certain amount was paid towards the corpus fund of the trust, cannot qualify the contribution as a "Corpus Donation".

Case Title: Aradhya Ghosh Versus DCIT

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that income tax exemption shall be available to Defence Forces personnel who have been invalidated from service on account of bodily disability while in service.

The two-member bench of Chandra Mohan Garg (Judicial Member) has deleted the addition made by the A.O. on account of disability pension not exempt from tax as the assessee had taken premature retirement at his own request.

Case Title: Prolific Research Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the payment made by the assessee to the non-resident supplier would amount to royalty and there is an obligation on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source.

The two-member bench of T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) has observed that the introduction of Explanation 5 in Section 9(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act has enlarged the scope of the definition of "Royalty".

Case Title: M/s. Vodafone Idea Ltd. versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that Vodafone Idea is not liable to Deduct Tax at Source (TDS) on the discount allowed to the distributors on purchase of prepaid SIM Cards and recharge vouchers.

The Bench of Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member) and M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member) held that since the relationship between the assessee Company and the distributors was only that of a principal to principal and not that of a principal to agent, therefore, the assessee was not obligated to deduct tax at source in terms of Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Case Title: Toyota Tsusho India P. Ltd. Versus The Joint / Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The Banglore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted the disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act against Toyota as no exempted income was earned.

The two-member bench headed by N.V. Vasudevan (Vice President) and Padmavathi S (Accountant Member) has noted that the AO has made the disallowance on the basis that the investment could potentially earn income, which substantiates the contention of the assessee that in the year under consideration the assessee has not earned any exempt income.

Case Title: M/s. Dredging Corporation of India Ltd. versus Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

The Visakhapatnam Bench of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)has ruled that liquidated damages received by a shipping company cannot be included in computation of tonnage tax and therefore, they are not exempt under the 'Tonnage Tax Scheme', as provided under Chapter XIIG of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Case Title: M/s Association of Mutual Funds in India Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the income tax exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act is eligible for activities undertaken for the advancement of general public utility.

The two-member bench headed by Pramod Kumar (Vice President) and Rahul Chaudhary (Judicial Member)has observed that the activities of the appellant were directed toward the benefit of investors and potential investors, forming part of the general public and not limited to the benefit of its members. The appellant has also maintained separate accounts in respect of the activities.

Case Title: ACIT versus M/s. Exclusive Motors Pvt. Ltd.

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that contract for extended warranty of Bentley Cars, entered into by an exclusive dealer with the Indian customers, does not constitute a dependent agent PE in India.

Case Title: M/s. Google India Private Limited versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that the distribution fees paid by Google India to Google Ireland under a Distribution Agreement, under which Google India was appointed as a distributor of AdWords programme to advertisers in India, is not in the nature of 'Royalty' under the India-Ireland DTAA.

Case Title: Krishna Pandurang Kobnak versus National Faceless Appeal Centre

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted the levy of late fees of INR 40,000 related to the period of the tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015.

Case Title: Sh. Karam Singh Malik Versus ITO

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that any sum paid to an employee as a bonus or commission for services rendered has to be allowed as a deduction.

The bench of Saktijit Dey has observed that the reasonableness of the payment or the adequacy of services rendered by the employee is not relevant factors in deciding the allowability of a deduction.

Case Title: Harjeet Kaur Versus Income Tax Officer

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the assessee had explained that deposits were made out of cash withdrawals made earlier for the purpose of her daughter's marriage.

Case Title: M/s. Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Pvt. Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), while ruling in favour of the HP, held that employee stock option plan (ESOP) cross charges paid to overseas ultimate holding companies are an allowable expenditure.

Case Title: Umeshkumar Harilal Shah versus ITO (TDS)-3, Ahmedabad

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that sale of scrap by a trader, who is not engaged in any manufacturing activity from which the scrap arose, will also attract TCS.

Case Title: Abbasbhai A. Upletawala Versus Income Tax Officer

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has suggested the government work out a mechanism to ensure tax recovery from Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs)/banks on the sale of security assets.

Case Title: RGA International Reinsurance Company Ltd. versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation

The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)has ruled that the business profits embedded in the reinsurance premium received by a non-resident reinsurance company, is not taxable in India if the company has no permanent establishment (PE) in India which is at its disposal.

Case Title: RGA International Reinsurance Company Ltd Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that there are no tax implications on business profits earned on account of the reinsurance business in the absence of a fixed place permanent establishment (PE) in India.

Case Title: Ms.Asokan Meena Versus ITO

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has directed the AO to estimate a 30% net profit on total cash deposits made during the demonetization period and deleted the balance additions made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.

Case Title: M/s.Sunsmart Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that payment made by the assessee to non-resident marketing partners for providing pre and post-sale services related to software solutions is in the nature of fees for technical services (FTS).

Case Title: Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax- 3(3)1) Versus M/s. Sikraft Infotech Private Limited

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the software development expenses for rendering services to clients are revenue expenses.

Case Title: ITO Versus M/s KDG Projects Pvt. Ltd.

The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted the addition as the assessee proved the creditworthiness of loan transactions.

Case Title: ICICI Securities Limited versus Income Tax Officer, International Taxation

The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that the liability to deduct tax at source (TDS) under Section 201 read with Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is a vicarious liability of the payer of an income and thus, the liability to deduct TDS ceases to exist when the primary liability of the recipient of income is already discharged.

Case Title: Deputy Commissioner of Income Circle 3 (3)(1), Mumbai Versus Reliance Industrial Holdings Pvt Ltd

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that Reliance Industrial Holdings and Biomatrix were associated enterprises, and, therefore, it could not be said that any income on account of Arm's Length Pricing (ALP) has escaped assessment.

Case Title: The State Bank of India Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle–Patiala

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed the deduction to the State Bank of India (SBI) on the total outstanding advances at the end of each month, considering the opening balances.

Case Title: NCML Varanasi Private Limited Versus ITO

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the interest income earned on fixed deposits kept as security for performance guarantees is taxable as business income and can be set off against project expenses.

The single bench of Saktijit Dey (Judicial Member) has directed the Assessing Officer to refund the TDS amount to the assessees.

Case Title: Smt. Perminder Kaur Matharoo Versus The I.T.O

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that a cash flow statement based on the entries made in the cash book reveals the source of cash deposited in the bank account and cannot be discarded by the authorities below.

The two-member bench of Kul Bharat (Judicial Member) and N.K. Billaiya (Accountant Member) has directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 7,65,000.

Case Title: ACIT versus M/s. Lifecell International Private Limited

The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that if the assessee violates the conditions prescribed under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (DTVSVS Act) by not paying the tax determined by the designated authority, the appeal filed by it prior to filing a declaration under the DTVSVS Act, disputing the tax liability raised against it, shall revive under Section 4(6) of the DTVSVS Act.

Case Title: M/s.Technocon Constructions & Infrastructure Private Limited Versus DCIT

The Banglore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the employees' contribution to PF and ESI should be remitted before the due date for it to be allowable under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act.

Case Title: M/s.Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. Versus The ITO

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that unrealized sale proceeds have to be excluded from an export turnover as well as total turnover.

Case Title: Dr. Sabesan Parameswaran Versus ACIT

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has fastened capital gain liability on owners executing General Power of Attorney (GPA) and selling property through GPA holders.

The two-member bench headed by Mahavir Singh (Vice President) and G. Manjunatha (Accountant Member) has observed that the GPA has nowhere given possession to the GPA holder, and he has only executed the sale deed. As per the clear terms of the Power of Attorney (PoA), the principal has to receive monetary consideration from the agent after the execution of the sale deed.

Case Title: M/s. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. versus ACIT

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that payment of Value Added Tax (VAT) by Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, a State Government undertaking, is not a fee or charge, or an appropriation made by the State Government, and thus, it cannot be disallowed as deduction under the provisions of Section 40(a)(iib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench of Mahavir Singh (Vice President) and Dr. Dipak P. Ripote (Accountant Member) held that since the power of the State Government to levy tax on sale and purchase of liquor and the power to levy fees are two different powers, which are derived from two different entries in the State list, the fees levied by the State under Entry 66, cannot encompass tax levied by virtue of Entry 54.

Case Title: Amiya Gopal Dutta Versus DCIT

The Kolkata Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the income tax assessment made by a non-jurisdictional officer is null and void.

The two-member bench of Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member) and Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member) has observed that in the case of a non-corporate assessee in non-metro cities, the ITR filed up to Rs. 15 lacs has to be assessed by ITO. Therefore, the assessment was made in violation of Instruction No. 1 of 2011 by the CBDT.

Case Title: Bholanath Precision Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that in order to claim the benefit of a reduced corporate tax rate, domestic companies have to mandatorily file Form 10–IC.

The two-member bench of Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) and Om Prakash Kant (Accountant Member) has observed that the assessee did not file Form 10–IC before the due date of filing the return of income, which is a mandatory condition for claiming the option available under Section 115BAA of the Income Tax Act.

Case Title: Mrs. Umamaheswari Versus The Income Tax Officer

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to delete the addition made on account of cash deposits made before demonetization.

The bench of G. Manjunatha (an accountant member) has observed that as per Section 5 of the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Ordinance, 2016, from December 31, 2016, no person shall, knowingly or voluntarily, hold, transfer, or receive any Specified Bank Notes. There was no prohibition on dealing with specified bank notes prior to December 31, 2016.

Case Title: Sudhir Chadha Versus ACIT

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the department is not allowed to travel beyond the issues involved in limited scrutiny cases.

The two-member bench of N.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) and Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant Member) have observed that the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny, and the addition in hand does not emanate from the grounds on which the case of the assessee was picked up for limited scrutiny.

Case Title: Abhishek Ashok Lohade versus ITO

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has ruled that where the assessee fails to establish the genuineness of the transaction of sale and purchase of shares, and fails to rebut the findings of quasi-judicial bodies regarding the bogus transaction in shares, the said transaction is void ab initio. Thus, applying the principle of fraud, the ITAT held that the assessee was not eligible for exemption of capital gains under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Case Title: ITO Versus Dr. Satish Natwarlal Shah

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that there need not be any "occasion" for the assessee to receive a gift.

The two-member bench of T.R. Senthil Kumar (judicial member) and Annapurna Gupta (accountant member) noted that the assessee received the gift from his own brother, who has been a non-resident since 1966. The allotment of shares was made under the NRI quota to the assessee's brother in the USA. Thus, the source and genuineness are being proved beyond doubt.

Case Title: BBC World Distribution Ltd. versus ADIT

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that the distribution revenue earned by the assessee- BBC World Distribution Ltd., from distribution of BBC World News Channel in India, is not in the nature of royalty and thus, it is not taxable in India in the absence of a Permanent Establishment.

The bench of G.S. Pannu (President) and Saktijit Dey (Judicial Member) held that distribution rights transferred by the assessee to BBC World India, to distribute BBC News Channel in India, did not fall under the definition of copyright under Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Thus, the ITAT concluded that the distribution revenue was not taxable as royalty.

Case Title: ACIT Versus Ascend Telcom Infrastructure (P) Ltd.

The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the additional evidence cannot be admitted without calling for a remand report or comments from the AO.

The two-member bench of Laliet Kumar (Judicial Member) and R.K. Panda (Accountant Member) observed that if the CIT(A) chooses to admit any additional evidence, in that case, he/she is required to provide the Assessing Officer with a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence or document or permit cross-examination of the evidence produced by the assessee.

Case Title: Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Vodafone India Ltd.

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), while allowing deduction to Vodafone, held that deduction for telecommunication services is available in respect of "profits of eligible businesses" and is not restricted to "profits derived from eligible businesses."

The two-member bench of Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member) and M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member) has directed the Assessing Officer to allow the benefit of deduction under section 80IA of the Income Tax Act in respect of interest income as well as miscellaneous income.

Case Title: Grih Kalyan Kendra Board Versus ITO

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that a mistake in the personal information of the assessee is always rectifiable at any stage.

Case Title: DCIT Versus AMRI Hospitals Ltd.

The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the advance was given for setting up a hospital project, and since the project was abandoned and the advance given could not be recovered, the sum is allowable as a revenue expenditure.

The two-member bench of Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member) and Manish Borad (Accountant Member) has observed that the advance was given for setting up a hospital project that was abandoned as a business loss under Section 28(1) of the Income Tax Act.

Case Title: M/s. Tata Industries Limited versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that investments made by an assessee company to exercise control over other investee companies constitutes a business activity.

The bench of Rahul Chaudhary (Judicial Member) and M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member) held that though the dividend income is taxable under the head 'income from other sources' in view of the specific provision contained in Section 56(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, however, since the assessee Tata Industries is an investment company, income in the form of dividend received by it is in the nature of business receipts.

Case Title: Fernandez Foundation Versus Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)

The Hyderabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the assessee hospital is charging on the basis of commercial rates from the patients and is not entitled to registration as a charitable organization under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act.

The two-member bench of Laliet Kumar (Judicial Member) and R.K. Panda (Accountant Member) has observed that the assessee is charging on the basis of commercial rates from the patients, either outdoor or indoor, and the assessee has failed to demonstrate that the charges or fee charged by it were based on a reasonable markup on the cost.

Case Title: Santshreshtha Gajajan Maharaj Sevabhavi Sanstha Versus The Commissioner of Income-tax

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed the deduction under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act to the trust, which is not substantially religious.

The two-member bench headed by R.S. Syal (Vice President) and Partha Sarthi Chaudhury (Judicial Member) has observed that if a trust or institution incurs expenses for religious purposes, which are inclusive and only a small part of the income, and if the substantial work done by the trust is charitable in nature and benefits the public at large, then the institution or trust has to be granted exemption under Section 80G.

Case Title: ITO Versus Mittal Court Premises Co. Op. Society Ltd

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act in respect of interest earned by cooperative societies from investments made with cooperative banks.

The two-member bench of Aby T. Varkey (Judicial Member) and Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member) has relied on the decision of the Karnataka high court in the case of PCIT VS Totagar's Cooperative Sales Society, in which it was held that the interest income derived by co-operative society by way of investment made with a co-operative bank would be entitled to a claim of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).

Case Title: Rahul Cold Storage Versus The Income Tax Officer

The Raipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted the addition on account of cash deposited in bank accounts during the demonetization period.

The bench of Ravish Sood (a judicial member) has observed that the AO, by not rejecting the books of account, has clearly accepted that the cash deposited in the bank accounts by the assessee firm during the year under consideration was not from its disclosed sources.

Case Title: M/s Longia Engineers Versus Pr. CIT

The Chandigarh Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that matters that were not subject to limited scrutiny cannot be raised in revisionary proceedings.

The two-member bench of Diva Singh (Judicial Member) and Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) has observed that the matter relating to wages and labor expenses, which was not subject to limited scrutiny, cannot be raised in revisionary proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act for the first time.

Case Title: M/s P R Packaging Service Versus ACIT

Case Title: M/s. Birla Edutech Limited versus ITO

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can only be exercised by the Assessing Officer for rectification of mistake which is apparent on the face of record.

The Bench of Pramod Kumar (Vice President) and Aby T. Varkey (Judicial Member) held that the issue whether Section 79 of the Income Tax Act was applicable in the case of the assessee where there was a change in its shareholding, was a debatable issue which involved interpretation of various sections and provisions of law, including the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as the Companies Act, 1956.

Case Title: M/s. TVS Finance & Services Ltd. versus ACIT

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that the land received by the assessee in the normal course of its finance business, in lieu of a business loan foregone, would assume the character of a business asset and not a capital asset, irrespective of its treatment in the assessee's books of accounts.

Case Title: Anik Chatterjee Versus ITO

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has allowed the capital gain exemption under section 54 of the Income Tax Act on the grounds that the amount equivalent to the capital gains has been used for the acquisition of a new house.

The two-member bench of Yogesh Kumar US (Judicial Member) and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar (Accountant Member) has observed that the agreement for sale was signed on August 8, 2014, and the payments had been completed by October 8, 2014.

Case Title: Shri Jay Atulbhai Mody Versus ITO

The Rajkot Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the property transferred by the assessee to his mother for consideration of Rs. 5 lakh is liable to be brought under the ambit of capital gain.

The two-member bench of Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) and Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member)has directed the AO to refer the matter to the Department Valuation Officer (DVO) to determine the value of the property in accordance with the provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act.

Case Title: Pallav Pandey Versus ACIT

(Video) AOR Exam Paper III, Advocacy & Professional Ethics, Dec 01, 2022

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed the expenses incurred towards the transfer of shares.

The two-member bench of Yogesh Kumar U.S. (Judicial Member) and B.R.R. Kumar (Accountant Member) has observed that the expenses incurred by the assessee are allowable transfer expenses as per Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, and both the lower authorities have committed an error in disallowing the expenses incurred by the assessee.

Videos

1. FULL COURT REFERENCE
(Supreme Court of India)
2. Watch how a young lawyer wins the case Patna high court stream 2022 #law #legal #patnahighcourt
(Law Chakra)
3. 100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2021 - PART-1
(Live Law)
4. No Judiciary Exams 2023 | Retirement Age of Supreme Court and High Court Judges Will Not be Raised
(Smart & Legal Guidance)
5. DIRECT TAX | MCQs | MAY 2022 | NOV 2022 | SEASON 3 | EPISODE 4 | CA SIDDHARTH NARENDRA SURANA
(CA SIDDHARTH NARENDRA SURANA)
6. The Trial (2010) | Full Movie | Larry Bagby | Clare Carey | Nikki Deloach
(Christian Movies)
Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Kareem Mueller DO

Last Updated: 06/06/2023

Views: 6157

Rating: 4.6 / 5 (66 voted)

Reviews: 81% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Kareem Mueller DO

Birthday: 1997-01-04

Address: Apt. 156 12935 Runolfsdottir Mission, Greenfort, MN 74384-6749

Phone: +16704982844747

Job: Corporate Administration Planner

Hobby: Mountain biking, Jewelry making, Stone skipping, Lacemaking, Knife making, Scrapbooking, Letterboxing

Introduction: My name is Kareem Mueller DO, I am a vivacious, super, thoughtful, excited, handsome, beautiful, combative person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.