June 5 to June 11, 2022


Deal Title: M/s Schneider Electric India Pvt. ltd. Versus ACIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Deleted) 545

The Delhi High Court comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Preetam Singh Arora remitted the case to the Valuation Officer for re-determination as the department sent the show cause notice to the wrong e-mail address. mail.

Case Title: Karida Real Estates Private Limited v ACIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Deleted) 546

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 556

The Delhi High Court bench consisting of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Poonam S. Bamba ordered the department to unseal the business premises and ordered the person assessed to produce documents.

High Court of Andhra Pradesh

Case Title: SPY Agro Industries Limited v Indian Union

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

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

High Court of Punjab and Haryana

Deal Title: Rajnandini Metal Ltd. Versus Union Of India

The bench of Judges Tejinder Singh Dhindsa and Pankaj Jain of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that there should be reason to believe that the input tax credit available in the electronic credit register has been obtained fraudulently or that the assessments are not eligible. The appropriate officer must record the reasons and an order to speak must be issued.

Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Sing Traders v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court Judge JB Pardiwala Bench as it then stood and Judge Nisha M. Thakore quashed the GST Void Order as it was mute and vague.

Orissa High Court

Case title: M/s. PK Ores Pvt. ltd. @M/S. PK Minings Pvt. ltd. versus Sales Tax Commissioner

The Orissa High Court Bench, consisting of Judges Jawant Singh and Murahari Sri Raman, ruled that the CT and GST Commissioner had no authority to authorize the filing of installment interest payments.

Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Nipika Agarwal, Owner of SN Trading, v Assistant State Tax Commissioner

The Calcutta High Court Bench held that assessees should be given the opportunity to produce evidence bearing on tax liability.

The divisional bench of Judge Debangsu Basak and Judge Bibhas Ranjan De observed that tax authorities should decide on tax liability according to law. Similarly, if the person being assessed is unable to present certain evidence affecting the tax payable, they must be given a reasonable opportunity to bring the evidence to the attention of the tax authorities.

STATUS

Case Title: Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad v M/s. Hyderabad Educational Institutions Pvt Ltd

The Hyderabad Bench of ITA ruled that tuition fees collected in advance are not taxable in the year of receipt and that tuition fees are 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 (accounting member), ruled that examination fees collected from students on behalf of foreign universities are not taxable as “fees for services techniques”.

Case Title: Swaminath N. Patil v. The Ward 2(5) Solapur

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appeals Tribunal (ITAT) has waived the penalty for late filing of audit reports due to hospitalization of assessee’s accountant.

The two-member bench, led by RS Syal (Vice-Chair) and Partha Sarathi Chaudhury (Judicial Member), concluded that the assessee had explained reasonable cause through documentary evidence. The Tribunal rescinded the CIT(A) order and ordered the AO to remove the penalty from the assessee.

Case Title: Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited v PCIT

The Visakhapatnam Bench of the Income Tax Appeal Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that the export duty and duty drawback of the promotion scheme are taxable income under the heading “profits or gains from ‘a business or profession’ in accordance with 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 (accounting member) concluded that the authorities below failed to understand the legislative intent behind the addition of a clause- (iiid) section 28 of the Income Tax Act. having retroactive effect.

Case Title: Ramesh Verma v ACIT

The Lucknow Bench of ITAT has ruled that trading in Commodity Derivatives, which satisfies the requirements of clause (e) of the first proviso of Section 43(5) of ITAT, 1961 , is non-speculative in nature, and therefore the resulting loss can be set off against the regular income of the business.

The bench, consisting of AD Jain (Vice Chairman) and TS Kapoor (Accounting Member), found that there is no bar of expertise required for trading commodity derivatives and that the clause (e) of the first conditional clause of section 43 (5) does not require such expertise.

Case title: M/s. Share India Versus CIT(E)

The Hyderabad Income Tax Appeal Tribunal (ITAT) comprising K.Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member) and Bhagirath Mal Biyani (Accounting Member) has ruled that the company receiving a grant from a Foreign entity cannot be denied registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act.

Case Title: Kendrapara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd v ITO

The Income Tax Appeals Tribunal (ITAT) Cuttack Bench has waived the penalty where the assessee has sufficient and reasonable cause to delay obtaining the audit report.

The two-member college of George Mathan (judicial member) and Arun Khodpia (accounting member) observed that the delay in submitting the audit report was due to a delay in obtaining the audit report from the auditors . The auditors are appointed by the clerk of the cooperative societies and not by the assessee.

Case Title: Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax v Credit Suisse (Singapore) Ltd.

The Mumbai Bench of ITA has ruled that the commission levied on the distribution of mutual fund schemes of an Indian fund outside India cannot be taxed in India, if all transactions are carried out by the distributor outside India.

The bench, consisting of Pramod Kumar (Vice Chairman) and Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member), held that simply because mutual funds distributed were monitored and regulated by SEBI and RBI in India, the commission earned by the appraised/distributor cannot be imposed. in India, since such income was not “reasonably attributable” to any transaction in India.

CESTAT

Case Title: Hakamichand D & Sons v CST Services Tax – Ahmedabad

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appeals Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that the supply of sleeping kits to passengers in air-conditioned and other classes on behalf of the ‘IRCTC entails a tax on services.

The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial member) and P.Anjani Kumar (Technical member) observed that the provision of sleeping kits to passengers for and on behalf of the IRCTC is in the nature of a “service of ‘customer support’. Therefore, services can be properly classified as ancillary to business.

Case Title: Celtic Systems Private Limited v CCE and ST-VADODARA-I

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appeals Tribunal (CESTAT), comprising Ramesh Nair (judicial member) and Raju (technical member), ruled that IT services provided by the assessee to the associated company in the United States amounted to an export of benefits.

Case title: M/s. Overseas Indian Bank v Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax

The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appeals Tribunal (CESTAT), comprising Sulekha Beevi CS (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member), ruled that the credit extended by Indian Overseas Bank on service charge paid on the basis of premium paid to Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC) for deposit insurance is eligible for CENVAT credit.

AAAR

Caller Name: NB Patil

The Maharashtra Appeal Authority for Advance Rulings (AAAR) has ruled that 5% GST is payable on turmeric in any form, falling under the definition of “agricultural product”.

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

RAA

Name of Applicant: M/s. Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sanitation Board

The Advance Ruling Authority (AAR) of Telangana, consisting of B. Raghu Kiran and SV Kasi Visweswara Rao, observed that GST is payable on employee health insurance premiums.

Name of Applicant: M/s. Jayabheri Orange County Homeowners Association

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

Applicant Name: Monalisa Co-Operative Housing Society Limited

The Maharashtra Advance Ruling Authority (AAR), consisting of TR Ramnani and Rajiv Magoo, has ruled that GST is payable upon receipt of free payment from outgoing members.

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

The Advance Ruling Authority (AAR) of Gujarat has ruled that Input Tax Credit (ITC) is allowable on the GST paid on the Freight Forwarding Agency (GTA) service provided to it, despite the that refrigerated vehicles travel empty on the return trip.

Previous “Agricultural help” for the end, the best wildlife ecosystem in the Lower 48?
Next Fine-tuned digital learning to keep kids on track rather than being distracted