Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram
Tax Updates - TMI e-Newsletters

Home e-Newsletters Index Year 2021 September Day 17 - Friday

TMI e-Newsletters FAQ
You need to Subscribe a package.

Newsletter: Where Service Meets Reader Approval.

TMI Tax Updates - e-Newsletter
September 17, 2021

Case Laws in this Newsletter:

GST Income Tax Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Indian Laws



Highlights / Catch Notes

    GST

  • Consultation with the noticee before issue of SCN - Non-compliance with the requirements - the show cause notice need not be set aside, but directions will have to be issued to the respondents to once again act on the liberty granted by us to attempt a genuine consultation process before the respondents proceed to adjudicate the show cause notice dated 15.12.2020. - HC

  • Seeking directions from the Court that the petitioner shall not be insisted for submitting the Bank guarantee - Admittedly, the petitioner himself applied under Section 67(6) of the Act seeking release of the seized goods vide Annex.10, based on which the order dated 11/5/2021 (Annex.15) was issued and as such passing of the order 11/5/2021 by the respondents also cannot be faulted. - besides the surety bond of the equivalent amount of value of goods by the petitioner, it would be required of the petitioner to furnish security in the form of bank guarantee in terms of Section 67 (6) of the Act and Rule 140 of the Rules for release of the seized goods. - HC

  • Challenge to vires of several sections of the GST Act including Section 50 and order demanding interest under Section 50 for the period July, 2017 to March, 2018 - validity of garnishee notice under Section 79 - In view of the retrospective amendment of Section 50 with effect from July 1, 2017 the impugned order dated May 14, 2019 is not sustainable in law and is set aside. Consequentially, the garnishee notice dated May 27, 2019 is also set aside. - HC

  • Jurisdiction of Summons issued by the respondent - search and seizure - The scope of Section 6(2)(b) and Section 70 is different and distinct, as the former deals with any “proceedings on a subject matter/same subject matter” whereas, Section 70 deals with power to summon in an inquiry and therefore, the words “proceedings” and “inquiry” cannot be mixed up to read as if there is a bar for the respondent to invoke the power under Section 70 of the CGST Act. - There is no ground made out by the appellant for quashing the summons issued by the respondent u/s 70 of the CGST Act - HC

  • Income Tax

  • Depreciable asset forming part of the block of assets - restarting of business after a time gap - instead of selling the building, if the assessee started using the building after two years for business purposes the assessee can continue to claim depreciation based on the written down value available as on the date of ending of the previous year in which depreciation was allowed last. - Order of HC restoring the additions made in the assessment order sustained - SC

  • Validity of order of Settlement Commission - acceptance of additional income disclosed by the assessee - Petitioner/Income Tax authority could not make out any exceptional case in this Writ Petition for exercising constitutional writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for scrutinizing or reappreciating the facts, evidence or findings of the learned Settlement Commission in reaching to its conclusion for allowing the claim of the assessee/respondent no. 2 made in settlement application and further Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot substitute the findings of the Income Tax Settlement Commission with its own findings and come to a different conclusion. - HC

  • Withdrawal of benefit granted to Petitioner under the DTVSV Scheme - considering that Form 3 had already been issued, on the declarations and undertaking filed by Petitioner, any action on the same entailing adverse consequences, ought to have been afforded with a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain its case, which the Revenue has ex-facie failed to offer. - Order set aside - Designated Authority directed to pass the fresh order, after giving a proper opportunity of hearing to Petitioner - HC

  • Addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) - difference in value in respect of the subject properties - there cannot be two different fair market value in respect of the very same property, i.e. one at the hands of the seller and the other at the hands of the buyer. Thus, in our view, if the difference in valuation between the value determined by the stamp duty authority and the declared sale consideration is less than 10%, no addition can be made under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) - AT

  • Revision u/s 263 - non reference to TPO - cases as selected for scrutiny on non transfer pricing risk parameters - The necessary enquiries and examination as reasonably expected have been carried out by the Assessing officer and he has taken a prudent, judicious and reasonable view after considering the entire material available on record as well as following the CBDT Instruction no. 3 of 2016 and the order so passed u/s. 143(3) cannot be held as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. - AT

  • Exemption u/s 11 denied - delay in filing Form no. 10 - Department's objection that the audit report in Form no. 10B was also delayed and such delay had neither been applied for condonation of delay nor been condoned, it was the submission of the assessee that the delay in filing Form no. 10B has been condoned, in general, by the CBDT, vide Circular No. 10/2019, dated 22.5.2019, it has been stated at the Bar by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the Audit Report in Form no. 10B had been e-filed on 4.2.2017 by the Auditor within the time prescribed under the Act, i.e., before the time prescribed for filing the return of income. - A copy of such e-verification screen-shot, having acknowledgement No. 761769971200417, has been placed on record. - Objections of the department rejected - AT

  • Customs

  • Classification of imported goods - Parts of seats of motor vehicle (parts of part) - There are no reason to interfere with the CESTAT wheerin it was held that, the captioned goods i.e. Child Parts imported by the appellant is correctly classifiable under CETH 9401 90 00 of Customs Tariff Act - SC

  • Demand against violation of bond conditions - Warehousing of goods imported - The appellant has furnished E.P copy of the shipping bill as proof of export. The appellant therefore has complied with conditions of notification read along with Circular / Public Notice / Hand Book of Procedure. The department accepted the same as fulfilment of obligations as per the bond executed by them - Being satisfied of the same, the bond has been cancelled, after which no demand can be raised alleging violation of conditions of bond. - AT

  • FEMA

  • Extension of tenure of Director of Enforcement - Though we have upheld the power of the Union of India to extend the tenure of Director of Enforcement beyond the period of two years, we should make it clear that extension of tenure granted to officers who have attained the age of superannuation should be done only in rare and exceptional cases. Reasonable period of extension can be granted to facilitate the completion of ongoing investigations only after reasons are recorded by the Committee constituted under Section 25 (a) of the CVC Act. - SC

  • Indian Laws

  • Power of Court to entertain an application u/s 9(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - On a combined reading of Section 9 with Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, once an Arbitral Tribunal is constituted, the Court would not entertain and/or in other words take up for consideration and apply its mind to an application for interim measure, unless the remedy under Section 17 is inefficacious, even though the application may have been filed before the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. The bar of Section 9(3) would not operate, once an application has been entertained and taken up for consideration - It could never have been the legislative intent that even after an application under Section 9 is finally heard relief would have to be declined and the parties be remitted to their remedy under Section 17. - SC

  • Dishonor of Cheque - cheating versus breach of contract - This court is not unmindful to note that there remains fine line of distinction between breach of contract and cheating. In case of cheating, it is the duty of the complainant to make out a case that from the very inception of establishment of commercial contractual relation between the parties, the accused had an intention to deceive fraudulently or dishonestly the complainant to induce him to deliver property. - HC

  • Central Excise

  • Demand of amount collected in the name of duty u/s 11D - CENVAT credit - inputs or capital goods - imported Box Strapping Machines - the appellant have cleared the imported Box Strapping Machine as such on payment of excise duty which is equivalent to the Cenvat credit availed thereon. For this reason also, no demand can be raised as the appellant is eligible for Cenvat on capital goods cleared as such, in terms of Rule 5(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. - the disallowance of Cenvat credit as well as demand under Section 11D are set-aside - AT


Articles


Notifications


News


Case Laws:

  • GST

  • 2021 (9) TMI 728
  • 2021 (9) TMI 727
  • 2021 (9) TMI 726
  • 2021 (9) TMI 724
  • 2021 (9) TMI 719
  • 2021 (9) TMI 718
  • 2021 (9) TMI 716
  • 2021 (9) TMI 713
  • 2021 (9) TMI 706
  • 2021 (9) TMI 676
  • 2021 (9) TMI 675
  • Income Tax

  • 2021 (9) TMI 736
  • 2021 (9) TMI 735
  • 2021 (9) TMI 734
  • 2021 (9) TMI 732
  • 2021 (9) TMI 725
  • 2021 (9) TMI 715
  • 2021 (9) TMI 714
  • 2021 (9) TMI 712
  • 2021 (9) TMI 709
  • 2021 (9) TMI 708
  • 2021 (9) TMI 705
  • 2021 (9) TMI 704
  • 2021 (9) TMI 703
  • 2021 (9) TMI 702
  • 2021 (9) TMI 701
  • 2021 (9) TMI 700
  • 2021 (9) TMI 699
  • 2021 (9) TMI 698
  • 2021 (9) TMI 697
  • 2021 (9) TMI 696
  • 2021 (9) TMI 694
  • 2021 (9) TMI 691
  • 2021 (9) TMI 690
  • 2021 (9) TMI 689
  • 2021 (9) TMI 681
  • 2021 (9) TMI 678
  • 2021 (9) TMI 677
  • 2021 (9) TMI 674
  • Customs

  • 2021 (9) TMI 729
  • 2021 (9) TMI 722
  • 2021 (9) TMI 686
  • Corporate Laws

  • 2021 (9) TMI 684
  • Securities / SEBI

  • 2021 (9) TMI 717
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy

  • 2021 (9) TMI 733
  • 2021 (9) TMI 693
  • 2021 (9) TMI 685
  • 2021 (9) TMI 683
  • 2021 (9) TMI 682
  • 2021 (9) TMI 680
  • 2021 (9) TMI 679
  • FEMA

  • 2021 (9) TMI 730
  • Service Tax

  • 2021 (9) TMI 688
  • Central Excise

  • 2021 (9) TMI 695
  • 2021 (9) TMI 692
  • 2021 (9) TMI 687
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax

  • 2021 (9) TMI 723
  • 2021 (9) TMI 720
  • 2021 (9) TMI 711
  • 2021 (9) TMI 710
  • Indian Laws

  • 2021 (9) TMI 731
  • 2021 (9) TMI 721
  • 2021 (9) TMI 707
 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates