Direct Tax Basket 2014-TIOL-2206-HC-MAD-IT + Story CIT Vs Sri S R Jeyashankar Income Tax - Sections 2(29A) & 2(42A). Keywords: sale of property - Long term capital gains - date of delivery - undivided share of land. Whether the date of allotment letter issued by the builder of the flat is to be considered as the date of acquisition of the property under Section 2(42A) - Whether for the purpose of computing holding period of the property, the date of allotment letter issued by the builder of the flat is to be considered or the date of delivery of possession of the flat is to be considered - Whether the mere fact that possession was delivered later would detract from the fact that allottee was conferred a right to hold property on issuance of an allotment letter - Whether the payment of balance instalments, identification of a particular flat and delivery of possession are consequential acts that relate back to and arise from the rights conferred by the allotment letter. - Revenues appeal dismissed : MADRAS HIGH COURT 2014-TIOL-2205-HC-MAD-IT CIT Vs M/s Hare Krishna Movement Income Tax - Sections 10A & 12AA. Keywords - application of registration - diligence in taking over land - land as gift. Whether the CIT can decline registration and doubt the objects of the trust, merely on the basis that there was a delay in handing over possession of the property to the trust, as a gift, by the donor - Whether any fault could be attributed to the trust, when the donor does not physically hand over the possession of the property. - Revenues appeal dismissed : MADRAS HIGH COURT 2014-TIOL-2203-HC-MAD-IT CIT Vs U Bhaskaran Income Tax - Sections 40(a)(ia), 143(1), 143(2) & 194C. Keywords: truck hiring - TDS deduction - transport business - hire charges. Whether in case an assessee hires trucks for his own use, on payment of hire charges for utilizing the same in its business, such payment of hire charges would fall within the provisions of Section 194C. - Revenues appeal dismissed : MADRAS HIGH COURT 2014-TIOL-2202-HC-MUM-IT CIT Vs M/s GTL Ltd Income Tax - Section 10B. Keywords: categorical observation - corporate expense - STP units. Whether the Tribunal has authority to ignore the objections of Departmental Representative and simply accept the categorical observation and finding of the CIT(A) without going into the details and appreciating that there was no basis for making such categorical observation. - Case remanded : BOMBAY HIGH COURT 2014-TIOL-2201-HC-KAR-IT CIT Vs M/s American Data Solutions India Pvt Ltd Income tax - Sections 10A & 260A. Keywords - commencement of production - STPI permission - total turnover & telecommunication charges. Whether telecommunication charges are required to be excluded from total turnover while computing deduction u/s 10A - YES: HC Whether where the assessee has fulfilled the stipulated conditions for claiming benefit of exemption mentioned u/s 10A and filled the application for registration of its unit under STPI, he cannot be denied exemption merely on the ground that commencement of production has started before getting STPI permission which was delayed on some extraneous grounds - YES: Del HC - Revenues appeal dismissed : KARNATAKA HIGH COURT 2014-TIOL-949-ITAT-AHM Alembic Ltd Vs DCIT Income Tax - Section 115WB(2). Whether the deeming fiction u/s 115WB(2) is attracted if the expenditure does not result in any benefit to employees. - Assessee’s appeal allowed : AHMEDABAD ITAT Indirect Tax Basket SERVICE TAX SECTION 2014-TIOL-2500-CESTAT-MUM + Story United Shippers Ltd Vs CCE ST - Question of levying to service tax the transportation by barges from the mother vessel to the jetty onshore would not arise at all since the said activity is part of the import transaction leviable to import duty - Appeals allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT [para 5, 6] - Appeals allowed : MUMBAI CESTAT 2014-TIOL-2499-CESTAT-AHM M/s Swaminarayan Vijay Carry Trade Pvt Limited Vs CCE & ST Service Tax - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand of service tax under Mining service - The appellant had entered into a contract with GMDC Limited for excavation and loading of lignite, transportation and also for loading and unloading from the power plant. There is no dispute as to that the appellant has discharged the service tax liability under Mining Services for excavation of lignite. There is also no dispute that GMDC Limited has discharged the applicable service tax for the transportation of lignite from the Mining point to the power plant and transportation of lime stone and fly ash from the power plant to various places - The dispute is regarding, whether this transportation activity would fall under Mining Services or not - Prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit. - Stay granted : AHMEDABAD CESTAT 2014-TIOL-2498-CESTAT-MUM Prassanna Purple Mobility Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST ST - Revenue confirming ST demand of Rs.1.19 crores against the appellant by classifying the activity of renting and hiring of car/bus etc. to various transport corporations/municipal corporations under the category of supply of tangible goods for use service HELD : Punjab & Haryana High Cour t as well as the Madras High Court and Tribunal in a series of decisions have been consistently following the classification of renting or hiring of bus/cabs services under the category of rent-a-cab services - No changes made in the law necessitating a new classification - The new service of supply of tangible goods for use has not been carved out of rent-a-cab service - Demand is not prima facie sustainable in law - Stay granted : CESTAT [5.1, 6] - Stay granted : MUMBAI CESTAT 2014-TIOL-2497-CESTAT-DEL M/s Khushi Enterprises Vs CCE & ST Service Tax - Stay / Dispensation of pre deposit - On investigation finding that the appellant had provided dredging service [taxable under section 65(105)(zzzb)], site formation & clearances, excavation, earth moving and demolition service [section 65(105)(zzza)] and supply of tangible goods service [section 65(105)(zzzzj)] to various parties; neither reflected these transactions in ST-3 Returns nor had paid any service tax; demands confirmed under proviso to Sec 73(1) with interest and penalties in adjudication, agitated herein. - Pre deposit ordered : DELHI CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION 2014-TIOL-2496-CESTAT-DEL M/s Magnum Ventures Ltd Vs CCE Central Excise - Manufacture - Revenue viewed that sludge and pulper waste and refuge generated during the manufacture of writing and printing paper was liable to duty in the wake of the amendment to Section 2(d) of Central Excise Act with effect from 10.05.2008 vide Section 78 of the Finance Act 2008 - demands adjudicated, upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) and agitated herein. - Appeal allowed : DELHI CESTAT 2014-TIOL-2495-CESTAT-BANG M/s Singareni Steel Pvt Ltd Vs CCE Central Excise - Clandestine manufacture and removal of excisable goods - Manipulation of records - Demand and Penalty - Sustainability - Manufacture of ingots - Discrepancies as regards quantity manufactured and moved between statutory registers and private register - Assessee contends that the difference of production in registers as alleged has been on account of wastage and burning losses unaccounted and not because of illegal diversion - Held, evidence on record amply indicates that number of ingots manufactured as per the private records is much more than the number of ingots manufactured as shown in official register - No proper explanation forthcoming from appellant to justify noticeable discrepancies - Not made out a case for total waiver of dues - Directed to deposit 50% of the duty confirmed. - Appeal partly allowed : BANGALORE CESTAT 2014-TIOL-2494-CESTAT-AHM Suzuki Ceramics Vs CCE & ST CE - Valuation - s.4A/s.4 of CEA, 1944 - Ceramic Tiles - for the period prior to 1.3.2008, the provisions of Section 4A will be applicable and there being no prescribed valuation rules under the said Section, the MRP/RSP cannot be re-determined; for the period post 1.3.2008, the value needs to be re-determined as per the valuation rules prescribed under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944, for which matter is remanded to the lower authorities & to follow the direction given by Bench in the case of Acme Ceramics & Others - Appeals filed by the appellant-assessees to that extent are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue to that extent are rejected: CESTAT [ para 12] - Appeals disposed of : AHMEDABAD CESTAT 2014-TIOL-2493-CESTAT-AHM M/s Jai Corporation Ltd Vs CCE Central Excise – CENVAT credit - Appellant engaged in the manufacture of synthetic blended/spun yarn, availed transfer of old credit from M/s Santogen Spinning Mills, which had been operating under Notification No.30/2004-C.E. dt.09.07.2004 as amended by Notification No.10/2005-C.E. dt.01.03.2005 as communicated by the Custodian-cum-agent to the jurisdictional officers from time to time – impugned credit viewed as irregular, demand for its recovery with interest and penalties on firm and individuals adjudicated and agitated herein. - Appeal allowed : AHMEDABAD CESTAT CUSTOMS SECTION 2014-TIOL-2204-HC-AHM-CUS + Story Asian Natural Resources (India) Ltd Vs CC Customs - Import of Coal - Steam Coal or Bituminous Coal - Appeal against pre-deposit - No substantial question of Law: It is by now well settled that the three aspects to be focussed while dealing with an application under section 129E of the Act are: (a) prima facie case, (b) balance of convenience, and (c) irreparable loss. The Tribunal in the impugned order has expressed the view that the appellant has an arguable case and also that in order to hear and dispose of the appeal, the appellant needs to be put to some condition. A perusal of the stay application made by the appellant reveals that insofar as financial hardship is concerned all that is stated is The Applicant is pleading undue financial hardship in making pre-deposit of any amount in view of excellent prima facie case on merits. Thus, the only ground of financial hardship pleaded is not actual financial hardship but that the appellant has an excellent prima facie case on merits. The High Court is of the view that the Tribunal, while considering the appellants application under section 129E of the Act, has exercised its discretion judicially. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to state that there is any legal infirmity in the impugned order so as to give rise to any question of law, much less a substantial question of law, so as to warrant interference. (para 6, 7) - Appeal Dismissed : GUJARAT HIGH COURT 2014-TIOL-2503-CESTAT-MAD + Story Tamil Nadu Generation And Distribution Corporation Ltd (TANGEDCO) Vs CC Customs - Classification of Coal - Steam Coal under CTH 27011920 as contended by the importers or Bituminous Coal under CTH 27011200 as contended by the Revenue. - Referred to Larger Bench : CHENNAI CESTAT 2014-TIOL-2502-CESTAT-BANG Maheswari Brothers Vs CC & ST Customs - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Bituminous coal or Steam Coal - Exemption under Notification No.12/2012-Customs dated 17.3.2012 - Issue already finally in the case of Coastal Energy Pvt. Ltd. and others in Final Order dt. 20/06/2014 reported in - 2014-TIOL-1157-CESTAT-BANG - Appellants directed to deposit the entire amount of differential duty payable as worked out in respect of their imports from South Africa and countries other than Indonesia and in respect of imports from Indonesia, in view of the alternative exemption under Notification No.46/2011-Cus, the appellants should deposit the entire amount of duty payable as per the rate applicable for imports from Indonesia subject to the condition that the appellants produce the relevant documents to the original adjudicating authority who would get the same verified and prima facie if the documents are in accordance with the requirements of statute, the deposit that will be made as per the rates applicable for imports from Indonesia would be sufficient. If there is a dispute on this issue, the same would be taken up at the time of considering the compliance report. Interest is also required to be deposited. (para 7) - Pre-deposit ordered: BANGALORE CESTAT 2014-TIOL-2492-CESTAT-AHM M/s Adani Enterprises Ltd Vs CC Customs - Stay and waiver of pre-deposit - Classification of Coal imported by the appellants - Importers claim it as Steam Coal whereas revenue classifying it as Bituminous Coal attracting higher rate of duty - Pre-deposit ordered. - Pre-Deposit ordered : AHMEDABAD CESTAT 2014-TIOL-2491-CESTAT-MUM Infrastructure Logistics Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & CE Cus - Appellant filed Shipping Bills in respect of export of ROM (Mixture of Iron Ore Fines and Lumps) and paid the duty as per the Tariff - refund claims were filed on the ground that the consignments consists of Iron Ore Fines and Lumps and entitled for benefit under Notification No. 62/2007-Cus dated 3.5.2007 - As per Supreme Court in the case of Flock (India) Pvt Ltd. the assessment order cannot be challenged in the refund claim - As the duty has been paid in pursuance of the assessment made by the assessing officer and that order has not been challenged, refund rightly rejected - no merits in appeals, so dismissed: CESTAT [Para 4, 11, 12, 13] - Appeal dismissed : MUMBAI CESTAT
Posted on: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 10:30:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015