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

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

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

The court held that the High Court was not justified in ruling that Tata Steel had no locus standi to file a writ petition challenging the denial of input tax credit to its unit in Naomundi in respect of the purchases made and utilised by it. Tata Steel being a registered company and thereby a juristic person, the court held that its writ petition could not have been dismissed as not maintainable, despite its units being treated as separate assessees under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

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

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

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 323

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 278

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 309

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

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

High Courts

Delhi High Court

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

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

Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 174

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 175

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 184

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 195

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

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

Case Title: Mrs. Jayanti Dalmia Versus DCIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 203

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 222

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

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

Case Title: Mayur Batra Versus ACIT And Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 225

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 231

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

Madras High Court

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 122

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

2. No Wilful Evasion Of Tax - Madras High Court Quashes Prosecution Under Section 276C (2) Of Income Tax Act

Case Title: S.P. Velayutham Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 124

The Madras High Court has ruled that prosecution under Section 276C (2) of the Income Tax Act for wilfully attempting to evade payment of tax cannot be initiated against an assessee who merely defaults to pay tax on time under the Act.

The Single Bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar held that in the absence of mens rea to avoid payment of tax, a "wilful attempt" to evade tax cannot be attributed to assessee in order to prosecute him under Section 276C (2).

3. Madras High Court Remands Matter To AO To Determine Whether IL&FS Is Public Financial Institution

Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s.Tamil Nadu Water Investment Co.Ltd

The Madras High Court has remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for determination to determine whether M/s. Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Limited (IL&FS) is a Public Financial Institution.

The division bench of Justice R.Mahadevan and Justice J.Satyanarayana Prasad set aside the order of the ITAT and remanded to the AO to examine, whether IL&FS is a public financial institution; and if it is in affirmative, then, section 43B(d) read with explanation 3C will be applicable; and pass orders afresh, after providing due opportunity of hearing to all the parties, within a period of eight weeks.

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 98

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

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

Case Title: Pushpam Reality Versus State Tax Officer

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

Bombay High Court

1. Reopening Of Income Tax Assessment Can't Be Allowed On Grounds Of Future Contingencies: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Pavan Morarka Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – 2(3), Mumbai

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 58

The Bombay High Court has held that the reopening of Income Tax Assessment cannot be allowed on grounds of future contingencies.

The division bench of Justice N.J.Jamadar and Justice K.R.Shriram has noted that the entire exercise of reassessment is only contingent on a future event and a consequence that may endure upon the decision of the Tribunal, that again if the Tribunal were to hold against the Revenue. A reopening of an assessment under Section 148 cannot be justified on such a basis. There has to be a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. 'Has escaped assessment' indicates an event which has taken place.

2. Payments Towards Charter Hire Of Tugs, Barges Made To Non-Resident Assessee Assessable U/S 44BB: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Larsen & Toubro Limited Versus Girish Dave, Director of Income-tax (International Taxation)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 60

The Bombay High Court has held that the payments made towards charter hire of tugs and barges made to non-resident assessee in execution of contract with Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd (ONGC) are accessible under Section 44BB of Income Tax Actand are entitled to special dispensation.

The division bench of Justice N.J.Jamadar and Justice K.R.Shriram has held that the payments made by the ONGC and received by the non-resident assessees or foreign companies under the contracts were more properly assessable under the provisions of Section 44BB and not under Section 44D of the Act.

3. Relief To HDFC Bank: Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice As Jurisdictional Condition Not Satisfied

Case Title: HDFC Bank Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax-2(3)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 61

In a major relief to the HDFC Bank, the Bombay High Court has quashed the reassessment notice as the jurisdictional condition for invoking the power under section 147 of the Income Tax Act was not satisfied.

The division bench of Justice N.J.Jamadar and Justice K.R.Shriram has observed that once, it is held that the jurisdictional condition for invoking the power under section 147 is not satisfied for a particular assessment year, the notice for reopening cannot be sustained. Then, it does not matter that the assessee did not assailed the notice for reopening in respect of preceding or succeeding years.

4. 'Reasons To Believe' Ought To Spell Out All Reasons, Grounds For Reopening Income Tax Assessment: Bombay High Court Comes Down Heavily On Income Tax Dept

Case Title: Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(3)(1) and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 62

The Bombay High Court has come down heavily on the Income Tax Department for not being transparent with tax payers in sharing the requested information basis of reopening action.

The division bench of Justice N.J.Jamadar and Justice K.R.Shriram relied on the judgement of the Delhi High Court in case of Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Assistant Commission of Income Tax wherein the guidelines has been laid down on reopening cases for assessing officers (AO) for strict compliance.

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 64

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

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

6. Disallowance Can't Be Made On Failure Of Assessee To Deduct TDS If Employee's Commission Shown As Part Of Salary Income: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Indofil Industries Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 66

The Bombay High Court has held that disallowance cannot be made on failure of assessee to deduct TDS if employee's commission is shown as a part of salary income.

The division bench of Justice Amit B.Borkar and Justice K.R.Shriram has ruled that section 192 of the said Act, unlike other TDS provisions, requires deduction of tax at source under the head "Salary only at the time of payment and not otherwise".

7. Holding Company Not Liable To Deduct TDS On The Share Purchase Transaction By Its Subsidiary: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ingram Micro INC. VERUS The Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 80

The Bombay High Court has held that even if a holding company was considered as an ultimate beneficiary of a share purchase transaction undertaken by its subsidiary company, it would still not be liable to deduct tax at source under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 if it did not make any payment to a non-resident under the transaction.

8. Reply Of The Taxpayer Not Considered: Bombay High Court Quashes Income Tax Faceless Assessment

Case Title: Pankaj s/o Roshan Dhawan Versus National e-Assessment Centre

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 81

The Bombay High Court bench, consisting of Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Pushpa V. Ganediwala, has quashed the income tax faceless assessment as the reply of the taxpayer was not considered by the department/respondent.

9. Reassessment Notice Issued Within 5 Hours Of Receiving Information, Bombay High Court Says Nothing Wrong, If There Is Application Of Mind

Case Title: Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal Vs ITO

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 84

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Amit B. Borkar has upheld the validity of the reassessment notice issued within 5 hours of receiving information against Maharashtra Minister, Chhagan Chandrakant.

10. Remuneration From Partnership Not 'Gross Receipt' For Purpose Of Audit Under Section 44AB Of Income Tax Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Perizad Zorabian Irani Versus PCIT And Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 98

The Bombay High Court has ruled that remuneration received from partnership firms cannot be treated as gross receipt in profession for the purpose of compulsory audit under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Kerala High Court

1. No Opportunity Of Hearing Given To Managing Director Imprisoned In UAE: Kerala High Court Quashes Income Tax Assessment Orders

Case Title: Atlas Jewellery [P] Ltd Versus Deputy Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 113

The Kerala High Court has quashed the income tax assessment order on the grounds that no opportunity of hearing was given to the Managing Director who was imprisoned in UAE.

The single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has ruled that the principle of natural justice has twin ingredients, firstly opportunity to show cause and of being heard should be given, it must be a real opportunity and not an unreal one, the right to a fair hearing is essential and secondly, the orders passed by the authorities should give reasons for arriving at any conclusion showing a proper application of mind.

2. Failure Of The Dealer To Attend Assessment Proceedings, No Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Karvy Innotech Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner (ASSMT) SGST Department

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 121

The Kerala High Court has held that failure of a dealer to attend assessment proceedings cannot be regarded as the violation of principles of natural justice.

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 124

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

4. Assessee's Recourse To Constitutional Provisions Not A 'Proceeding Under Income Tax Act' : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Udaya Sounds v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 142

The Kerala High Court on Thursday ruled that a Special Leave Petition filed by an assessee under Article 136 of the Constitution of India cannot be regarded as a proceeding under the Income Tax Act.

Karnataka High Court

1. AO Can't Take Advantage Of Assessee's Ignorance To Collect More Tax: Karnataka High Court Condones Delay Of 6 Years In Filing Revised ITR

Case Title: Devendra Pai Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 63

A bench of Karnataka High Court consisting of Justice Sunil S.Yadav has condoned the delay of 6 years in filing revised Income Tax Return (ITR).

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 65

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 73

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

Calcutta High Court

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

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

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 62

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

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

2. ​​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.

3. Income Tax Commissioner In Discretionary Power Of Revision Can't Act As Appellate Authority: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Unisource Hydro Carbon Services Private Limited Versus Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 72

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the power of an Appellate Authority is much wider than that of a Revisional Authority and the Commissioner, in the exercise of his discretionary power of revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, cannot act as an Appellate Authority and go into the merits of the assessment by re-appreciating the facts and evidence.

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

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

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 80

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 84

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

Gujarat High Court

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

Case Title: Niraj Jaidev Arya Versus State of Gujarat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case Title: Amit Harishkumar Doctor Versus Union of India

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case Title: M/s. IPCA Laboratories Versus Commissioner

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

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

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

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

Rajasthan High Court

1. 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.

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

Case Title: Pacific Industries Ltd. Versus Union Of India

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 87

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

Allahabad High Court

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

Case Title: Gamma Gaana Limited Versus Union Of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 118

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 129

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

Madhya Pradesh High Court

1. Income Disclosed Under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme Cannot Be Included With Regular Income; Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Subhash Chandra Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax, Indore And Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 84

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that income disclosed under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme cannot be included with the regular income declared under Income Tax Act as the tax paid under the Scheme cannot be refunded at any cost.

The Bench, consisting of Justices Vivek Rusia and Amar Nath Kesharwani, has held that tax paid under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme and tax paid under Income Tax Act are different and there cannot be any adjustment between them. The Bench added that an assessee cannot be permitted to disclose part of his income under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme and other part of his income in an income tax return filed belatedly under the Act.

2. MP High Court Grants Custody Of Looted Property Recovered By Police To Income Tax Department As The Same Was Not Disclosed By Complainant

Case Title: Jahar Singh Gurjar Vs. The State of M.P. & Another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 75

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench recently dismissed an application moved by a Complainant in a dacoity case, seeking custody of the recovered stolen cash to the tune of Rs. 45 Lakhs.

Andhra Pradesh High Court

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

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

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 49

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

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

Case Title: Ali Cotton Mill v. Appellate Joint Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 35

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

Punjab and Haryana High Court

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

Case Title: Vijay Mamgain Vs State of Haryana

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 34

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 36

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 37

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 46

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

Jharkhand High Court

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 29

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

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

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

Case Title: Narsingh Ispat Limited Vs Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 30

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 26

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 27

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 28

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

Meghalaya High Court

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 7

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

Orissa High Court

1. 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'.

ITAT

1. Performance Guarantee Commission Is Not Business Income Under DTAA: Delhi ITAT

Case Title: Dynamic Drilling & Services Pvt. Ltd Versus ACIT, New Delhi

The Delhi Bench of ITAT, consisting of Amit Shukla (Judicial Member) and B.R.R. Kumar (Accountant Member), has ruled that performance guarantee commission received by an assessee from its foreign Associated Enterprise is not its business income under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

The ITAT thereore 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.

2. Foreign Tax Credit Cannot Be Denied For Delay In Filing Form 67: Bangalore ITAT

Case Title: M/S. 42 Hertz Software India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore

The Bangalore Bench of ITAT has ruled that Foreign Tax Credit cannot be denied to the assessee for delay in filing Form 67.

The Bench, consisting of members Beena Pillai (Judicial Member) and Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member) has ruled that Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules which requires the assessee to submit Form 67 before filing the income tax return for claiming Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) is directory in nature and not mandatory, thus FTC cannot be denied for delay in filing Form 67.

3. Employee Contribution To PF/ESI Before ITR Filing Eligible For Income Tax Deduction: ITAT

Case Title: M/s. B. R. S. Precision Manufacturing Private Limited Versus DCIT

The Banglore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that an Employee contribution to Provident Fund (PF)/ Employee State Insurance (ESI) before ITR filing is eligible for income tax deduction.

The single member bench of Vice President, N.V.Vasudevan in the light of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd vs DCIT observed that employee's contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act would also be covered under section 43B and therefore if the share of the employee's share of contribution is made on or before due date for furnishing the return of income under section 139(1), then the assessee would be entitled to claim deduction.

4. ITAT Delhi: Income Tax Act Does Not Prohibit HRA Exemption On Rent Paid To Wife

Case Title : Abhay Kumar Mittal Versus DCIT

The Delhi Bench of ITAT, consisting of members A. D. Jain (Vice President) and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar (Accountant Member), has ruled that HRA exemption under Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be denied on the ground that the Assessee pays rent to its spouse.

5. Denying Carry Forward Of Business Loss Based On Non-Completion Of Tax Audit Within Prescribed Time Not Justified: ITAT

Case Title: Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Brahmos Aerospace (Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd.

The Cochin Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that denying the carry forward of business loss based on non-completion of tax audit/ statutory audit within prescribed time is not justified.

6. ITAT Disallows 'Mixed Used Charges' For Regularising Usage Of Residential Premises For Commercial Purposes Against House Property Income

Case Title: Amar Chand Garg Versus ACIT

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has disallowed the 'Mixed Used Charges' for regularising usage of residential premises for commercial purposes against house property income.

7. Income Tax Notice, Revisionary Proceedings Against A Dead Person Is Void: ITAT

Case Title: Sheela Devi Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the notice issued against a dead person is null and void and all consequent proceedings or orders being equally tainted are liable to be set aside.

8. ITAT Mumbai: Sale Of TDRs Does Not Attract Capital Gains Tax

Case Title: Income Tax Officer Versus Kirit Raojibhai Patel

The ITAT Bench of Mumbai, consisting of members Pavan Kumar Gadale (Judicial Member) and Prashant Maharishi (Accountant Member), has ruled that sale of transferable development rights does not attract capital gains tax since the cost of acquisition for the same does not exist.

9. Consideration For Accessing Database Cannot Be Treated As 'Royalty' Under India-US DTAA: ITAT

Case Title: M/s Dow Jones & Company Inc. Versus A.C.I.T.

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)has ruled that the consideration for accessing Database cannot be treated as 'Royalty' under India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

10. ITAT Remands Matter To CIT(A) To Determine Taxable Income After Examining Nature Of Credit Entries, Bank Accounts

Case Title: Subhash Chander Khanna Versus Income Tax Officer

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) consisting of Astha Chandra (Judicial Member) and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar (Accountant Member) has remanded the matter back to CIT(A) to determine the issue afresh after examining the bank accounts and determining the taxable income.

11. Rejection of Additional Evidence without Examination is Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: ITAT

Case Title: Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Singh Versus ITO

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that rejection of additional evidence without examination is a violation of principles of natural justice.

The two-member bench of B.R.R.Kumar (Accountant Member) and Saktijit Dey (Judicial Member) has restored the issue to the file of Commissioner (Appeals) for de-novo adjudication after considering the additional evidences filed by the assessee and the remand report of the Assessing Officer.

12. ITAT: Unascertained Business Loss Cannot Be Allowed As Deduction

Case Title: Avijit Dewanjee Versus DCIT, Bengaluru

The Bangalore Bench of ITAT, consisting of members Beena Pillai (Judicial Member) and Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), has ruled that unless the recovery of embezzled amount in the course of business was impossible, it could not be claimed as a business loss. The ITAT ruled that an unascertained loss cannot be allowed as deduction from taxable income.

13. Non Production Of Persons Despite Summons Leads To Inference Of Routing Own Money : ITAT Delhi

Case Titled: Anandtex International P. Ltd Versus Acit, Circle, Panipat

The Delhi Bench of ITAT, consisting of members G.S. Pannu (President) and K. Narsimha Chary (Judicial Member), has ruled that an Assessing Officer has the power to verify transactions beyond the paperwork submitted by the Assessee under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

14. ITAT Chennai: Internal Family Arrangement Has No Bearing On Computation Of Capital Gains From Joint Property

Case Title: Dr. E.S. Krishnamoorthy Versus The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-I(4), Chennai

The Chennai Bench of ITAT, consisting of members V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and G. Manjunatha (Accountant Member), has held that capital gains under the Income Tax Act, 1961 is to be computed according to the respective share of the parties in a residential property and not according to any internal family arrangement.

15. Claim Of Deduction Under Section 54 Of Income Tax Act To Be Reckoned From The Date Of Possession Of New Property: Mumbai ITAT

Case Title : Reji Easow Versus Income Tax Officer, Thane

The Mumbai Bench of ITAT, consisting of members Pramod Kumar (Vice President) and Kuldip Singh (Judicial Member), has ruled that an assessee's claim of deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was to be reckoned from the date of possession of the new residential house property. Also, the ITAT ruled that the source of funds for the purchase of the new house property under Section 54 is irrelevant.

16. Payment To Foreign Company For Utilisation Of Transponder Of A Satellite Is Not "Royalty" As Per DTAA: ITAT

Case Title: The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (Intl. Taxation) Versus M/s Viacom 18 Media Pvt. ltd.

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) consisting of Sandeep Sigh Karhail (Judicial Member) and Prashant Maharishi (Accountant Member) ruled that the payment made to a foreign company for the utilisation of a transponder centred on a satellite was not in the nature of "royalty" in terms of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

17. Accessing The Premises Of A JV Company For Technical Assistance Can't Be Treated As Permanent Establishment Under DTAA : Delhi ITAT

Case Title: FCC Co. Ltd. Versus ACIT, New Delhi

The Delhi Bench of ITAT, consisting of members N.K. Billaiya (Accountant Member) and Astha Chandra (Judicial Member), has held that access to a foreign enterprise for providing technical assistance to its Joint Venture Company in its premises in India does not amount to a Permanent Establishment under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.

18. Interest Income Derived By Gujarat Sports Authority On Its Surplus Taxable As "Income From Other Sources": Ahmedabad ITAT

Case Title: Sports Authority Of Gujarat Versus DCIT (Exemption)

The Ahmedabad Bench of ITAT, consisting of members P.M. Jagtap (Vice President) and Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), has ruled that the interest income earned by the Gujarat Sports Authority on its deposits would be taxable as "Income from Other Sources" and not as business income under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT held that since the Sports Authority was not engaged in any business activity, therefore the interest income earned by it on its deposits would not qualify as business income.

19. Interest On Income Tax Refund Not Connected To Permanent Establishment Under DTAA, Cannot Be Taxed As Business Income: Dehradun ITAT

Case Title: ACIT (INTL. Taxation), Dehradun Versus Baker Hughes Singapore PTE

The Dehradun Bench of ITAT, consisting of members Amit Shukla (Judicial Member) and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar (Accountant Member), has ruled that interest on income tax refund received by a foreign enterprise is not effectively connected to its Permanent Establishment in India and therefore it cannot be taxed as its business income under Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT also held that receipts from Service Tax and VAT could not be included in the gross taxable receipts of an assessee under the Act.

20. AO's claim That The Assessee Is Only Into Job Work And Not Manufacturing Rejected, Deduction Allowed By ITAT Delhi

Case Title: DCIT Versus Himalayan Auto Era (India) Pvt. Ltd.

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) while allowing the deduction under Income Tax Act has rejected the claim of AO that the assessee is only into job work and not manufacturing.

21. LTCG On Penny Stock Transaction Cannot Be Denied Exemption In Absence Of Incriminating Material: ITAT Mumbai

Case Title: Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai Versus Vipul Suresh Kumar Modi

The Mumbai Bench of ITAT, consisting of members Rahul Chaudhary (Judicial Member) and Shamim Yahya (Accountant Member), has ruled that long term capital gains arising from a penny stock transaction cannot be denied exemption under the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the said transaction is bogus and pre-arranged in the absence of any incriminating material.

22. Flight Testing Services Provided To Hindustan Aeronautics Not Taxable As Fees For Technical Services: Bangalore ITAT

Case Title: M/S Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Versus ACIT, Bengaluru

The ITAT Bangalore Bench, consisting of members George George K (Judicial Member) and Padmavathy S (Accountant Member), has ruled that flight testing services provided to Hindustan Aeronautics Limited cannot be taxed as fees for technical services and therefore no TDS is required to be collected on it.

23. Belated Deposit Of PF And ESI Contribution Of Employees Cannot Be Added To Employer's Taxable Income: ITAT Delhi

Case Title: Guardian India Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

The Single Bench of Delhi ITAT, consisting of judicial member Kul Bharat, has ruled that belated payment of employees' contribution to the Provident Fund and State Insurance Scheme cannot be added to the employer's taxable income as deemed income, if the said deposits are made before the due date of filing the income tax return under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

24. Non-Appearance Of Assessee In Response To Notice Issued Electronically Under Section 142(1) Of Income Tax Act A Bonafide Mistake: ITAT Mumbai

Case Title : Triumph International Finance India Limited Versus DCIT, Mumbai

The Mumbai Bench of ITAT, consisting of members G.S. Pannu (President) and Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member), has ruled that non-compliance by the assessee of a notice issued electronically under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the first year of transition towards an online and digital interface by the revenue department, is not deliberate and is a bonafide mistake.

25. Income Tax Deduction Available On Distribution Of Gifts For Sales Promotion Even If Assessee Refuses To Share List Of Recipients: ITAT

Case Title: ACIT Versus Armee Infotech

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) headed by Rajpal Yadav (Vice President) and Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member) has held that the assessee was eligible for an income tax deduction on the distribution of gifts for sales promotion even if the assessee refused to share the list of recipients.

26. Non-Deduction of TDS At The Year End As The Amount Payable Was Not Identifiable: Penalty not justifiable- ITAT

Case Title: Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s Parsons Brinckershoff India Pvt. Ltd.

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), consisting of Kul Bharat (Judicial Member) and R.K. Panda (Accountant Member), upheld the CIT(A) order, holding that the mere fact that taxes were not deducted on the year end provision but were deducted and deposited upon crystallisation of liability to pay the expenses does not automatically justify the imposition of a penalty under section 271C of the Income Tax Act.

27. State Authorities, Regulatory Bodies Including Direct & Indirect Tax Departments Cannot Question Resolution Plan: ITAT Dismisses Revenue Department's Appeal

Case Title: Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Global Softech Ltd.

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue department on the grounds that the state authorities and regulatory bodies, including direct and indirect tax departments, cannot question the resolution plan.

CESTAT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case Title: Prasar Bharati Versus Service Tax Commissioner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AAR

1. 18% GST Payable On Supply Of Functional Cattle Feed Plant, Inclusive Of Erection, Installation, Commissioning: AAR

Applicant's Name: M/s IDMC Ltd

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

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

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

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

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

Applicant's Name: M/s. Siddhartha Constructions

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

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

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

Applicant's Name: Smt. Rama Devi Guttikonda

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

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

Applicant's Name: M/s IOCL

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

6. Poultry Crates Attracts 18% GST: AAR

Applicant's Name: Nilkamal Limited

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

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

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

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

8. Membership Fee Collected By Club Exigible To GST: AAR Maharashtra

Applicant Name: M/S The Poona Club Ltd.

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

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

Applicant: Shanmuga Durai

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

AAAR

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

Appellant's Name: Temple Packaging Pvt. Ltd.

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

2. Mango Pulp/Puree' Attracts 18% GST: AAAR

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

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

3. 18% GST Payable On Pizza Topping As Pizza Topping Is Not Pizza: AAAR

Applicant's Name: Khera Trading Company

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

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

Appellant Name: BMW India Pvt. Ltd.

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

5. Cooking Cream Attracts 18% GST: AAAR

Appellant's Name: Khera Trading Company

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