Newsletter: Where Service Meets Reader Approval.
TMI Tax Updates - e-Newsletter
June 5, 2020
Case Laws in this Newsletter:
GST
Income Tax
Customs
Corporate Laws
PMLA
Service Tax
Central Excise
CST, VAT & Sales Tax
Indian Laws
Articles
News
Notifications
Customs
-
12/2020 - dated
3-6-2020
-
ADD
Seeks to impose anti-dumping duty on "Electronic Calculators of all types [excluding calculators with attached printers, commonly referred to as printing calculators, calculators with ability to plot charts and graphs, commonly referred to as graphing calculators and programmable calculators originating in, or exported from Malaysia".
-
11/2020 - dated
3-6-2020
-
ADD
Seeks to amend No.28/2015-Customs (ADD), dated the 5th June, 2015 so as to extend anti-dumping duty on ‘Hot Rolled Flat Products of Stainless Steel of ASTM Grade 304 with all its variants as per the detailed description hereunder’ originating in or exported from People’s Republic of China, Malaysia and the Republic of Korea.
-
49/2020 - dated
4-6-2020
-
Cus (NT)
Exchange Rates Notification No.49/2020-Custom (NT) dated 04.06.2020
GST - States
-
08/2019- State Tax (Rate) - dated
1-6-2020
-
Delhi SGST
Seeks to amend Notification No. 1/2017-State Tax (Rate), dated the 30th June, 2017
-
04/2019- State Tax (Rate) - dated
1-6-2020
-
Delhi SGST
Seeks to amend Notification No. 12/2017- State Tax (Rate), dated the 30th June, 2017
-
F. 1-11(91)-TAX/GST/2020(Part-II) - dated
20-5-2020
-
Tripura SGST
Special procedure for corporate debtors
-
F. 1-11(91)-TAX/GST/2020(Part-II) - dated
20-5-2020
-
Tripura SGST
Notification regarding e-invoice
-
F. 1-11(91)-TAX/GST/2020(Part-II) - dated
20-5-2020
-
Tripura SGST
Seeks to exempt certain class of registered persons capturing dynamic QR code
-
F. 1-11(91)-TAX/GST/2020(Part-II) - dated
20-5-2020
-
Tripura SGST
Seeks to extend the time limit for furnishing of the annual return for the financial year 2018-2019
-
F. 1-11(91)-TAX/GST/2020(Part-II) - dated
20-5-2020
-
Tripura SGST
Seeks to specify the class of persons who shall be exempted from aadhar authentication.
-
F. 1-11(91)-TAX/GST/2020(Part-II) - dated
20-5-2020
-
Tripura SGST
Notification for Aadhaar Authentication
-
F. 1-11(91)-TAX/GST/2020(Part-II) - dated
20-5-2020
-
Tripura SGST
Regarding class of persons,other than individuals who shall undergo Aadhaar authentication for eligibility in registration.
Circulars / Instructions / Orders
Highlights / Catch Notes
GST
-
Profiteering - supply of Fogg Deo Fougere BX 150 ml - allegation that the benefit of tax reduction not passed on - the DGAP has calculated the amount of net higher sales realization due to increase in the base price of the impacted good/products, despite the reduction in the GST rate from 28% to 18% - Case of profiteering established.
-
Grant of bail - issuance of fake invoices giving benefit to companies who availed benefit of of ITC - the offence alleged against the accused petitioners is compoundable. However, no process for compounding the offence has been undertaken by either of the party. - Bail application allowed subject to conditions.
-
Search and Seizure - seizure of Mentha Oil - approach to appropriate authority under Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - petitioners has submitted that "Mentha Oil" has been seized in the matter which is perishable in nature but the concerned authority has not yet exercised its power under Section 67 of the Act - petitioners directed to make an appropriate application/representation before the concerned authority.
Income Tax
-
PE in India - India-Spain DTAA - business profit carried out through PE - Services rendered from outside India - there is no Permanent Establishments during the relevant assessment year 2007-08 for the activities relating to DPIR and engineering services from which the assessee has earned the revenue and same cannot be taxed as business profit carried out through PE in India. It is in the nature of FTS which is to be taxed in accordance with Article 13(4) of India-Spain DTAA
-
Subsidy receipt - Merely because the amount of subsidy was equivalent to 75% of the sales tax paid by the beneficiary does not imply that the same was in the form of refund of sales tax paid. Therefore, since the subsidy was for setting up of large/medium/small scale eligible unit, it is in the nature of capital receipt.
-
TP Adjustment - Selection of MAM - transactional net margin method is the most appropriate method, the TPO is directed to examine the international transactions entered into by the assessee applying that method and compare the margin of the assessee with the comparable companies selected by the assessee.
-
Loss on pictures - bad debts - the assessee has claimed to incurred Loss due to non-recovery of advances and therefore, claimed it as loss which is not impermissible under the law.
-
TDS on amount appropriated towards the Pension Fund Corpus - sums paid by the fourth respondent Bank to the members of the petitioner Association towards salary and arrears of salary, pursuant to the provisions of the 9th Bipartite Settlement - Petitioners directed to make representation before the CBDT.
Customs
-
Classification of imported goods - Squalene - CIFT and Customs Laboratories have reported that the impugned product is fish oil. Therefore, we find that it cannot be classified under Chapter 2901 as saturated or unsaturated acyclic hydrocarbons along with ethylene, propene, butene, acetylene, heptene etc.
-
Valuation of imported goods - industrial valves of various types - Related party - Appellate Authority did not discuss on the methodology to arrive at the import price having rejected the declared value. No directions are given to the lower authorities about the manner in which the valuation is to be arrived at and the rules thereunder to be applied. Such an order cannot be implemented.
Corporate Law
-
Disqualification from appointment as a Director - it would be appropriate for the petitioner to make a representation before the Registrar of Companies, Guwahati being the respondent No.2 as regards his claim for continuing with the Director Identification Number (DIN) and Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) as well as to exclude his name from the list of disqualified directors
Service Tax
-
Renting of immovable property Service - providing interconnected services to the film distributors - the appellant has not provided any service to the distributors nor the distributors have made any payment to the appellant as consideration for the alleged service - no service can be said to have been provided by the appellant.
-
Refund of Service tax - appellants have preferred a refund claim stating that the same was in respect of food served on which VAT was paid - Revenue could not place any proof in the form of a bill, etc., to substantiate the allegation that the banquet halls were rented out for a consideration - the department’s stand is not substantiated so far as the reduction of refund is concerned on merits.
VAT
-
Levy of VAT - Renting of space - Transfer of Right to use - transfer of “right to use” of the space to the mobile service providers as these companies were having access of the equipment, infrastructure and space for their use - there is no “deemed sale” within the meaning of Article 366(29-A)(d) of the Constitution of India and Secion 2(33)(iv) of the Act.
-
Payment of amount due to the Government - priority of charge arising out of sales tax arrears, vis-a-vis the arrears due to others including the petitioner mortgagee - sale of the defaulter's properties - Definitely, the sales tax arrears take precedence over the claims of an existing mortgagee also.
Case Laws:
-
GST
-
2020 (6) TMI 114
Search and Seizure - seizure of Mentha Oil - approach to appropriate authority under Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - petitioners has submitted that Mentha Oil has been seized in the matter which is perishable in nature but the concerned authority has not yet exercised its power under Section 67 of the Act - HELD THAT:- This writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to make an appropriate application/representation before the concerned authority under the relevant provision of the Act, 2017 ventilating their grievances along with a certified copy of this order enclosing therewith a copy of the writ petition and its Annexures and, if any such application/representation is filed, the concerned authority shall make all endeavour to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order, after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within two weeks from the date of receipt of the said application.
-
2020 (6) TMI 113
Grant of bail - issuance of fake invoices giving benefit to companies who availed benefit of of ITC - offence under Section 132(1)(b)(c)(f)(j) and (I) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- This Court notices that the complaint has already been filed with complete details before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur, who is ceased with the matter and the trial has commenced. The witnesses are in a huge number and the trial is likely to take time. No further documents are required to be produced apart from any other document, which may be required subsequently. The petitioners cannot be said to be required for any further investigation and no recovery is required to be effected against them and their account has also been seized - The recovery, which is required to be made as against the accused petitioners, is under the provisions of GST Act, which are not part of the criminal case. This Court also notices that the offence alleged against the accused petitioners is compoundable. However, no process for compounding the offence has been undertaken by either of the party. However, learned counsel submits that as the petitioners are behind bars, no proceeding for compounding the offence could be taken. Keeping in view that the petitioners are already in jail for 450 days and no further investigation or recovery is to be made for the purpose of the case, the petitioner is allowed to be released on bail subject to submitting a bail bond in the sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- along with one surety of the like amount along with certain conditions imposed. Bail Application allowed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 112
Grant of third (interim) bail application - It is contended that in any of the reports, it is not mentioned that petitioner s father needs treatment - offence under Sections 132(1), (b), (c), (f), (g), (k), (i) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with 69 of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the Union of India, the grant third (interim) bail application, cannot be granted. Third (interim) bail application dismissed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 111
Jurisdiction - power of the department to proceed for levy of service tax under Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994 inspite of the same being omitted by Section 173 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Clause 29(h) read with Clause 13 of the Notification No.25/2012-Service Tax dated 20th June, 2012 - HELD THAT:- The matter is fixed on 12.06.2020, on which date Mr. Keyal will produce the connected records pertaining to the petitioner in original. List accordingly.
-
2020 (6) TMI 110
Profiteering - supply of Fogg Deo Fougere BX 150 ml - allegation that the benefit of tax reduction not passed on - contravention of section 171 of CGST Act - Penalty - HELD THAT:- It is revealed that the Central Government, on the recommendation of the GST Council, had reduced the GST rate on the impugned good Fogg Deo Fougere BX 150 ml from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017, vide Notification No. 41/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017. It is also revealed that the DGAP has calculated the amount of net higher sales realization due to increase in the base price of the impacted good/products, despite the reduction in the GST rate from 28% to 18% as ₹ 8,50,442/- only (inclusive of the excess GST collected by the Respondent from his recipients) in respect of the Respondent. The said profiteered amount had been arrived at by the DGAP by comparing the average of the base prices of the impacted goods sold during the period 01.07.2017 to 14.07.2017, with the actual invoice-wise base prices of such goods/products sold by the Respondent during the period from 15.11.2017 to 31.03.2019. The profiteered amount is determined as ₹ 8,50,442/- (inclusive of the GST) as per the provisions of Rule 133 (1) of the above Rules as has been computed vide Annexure-25 of the Report dated 24.09.2019. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to reduce his prices commensurately in terms of Rule 133 (3) (a) of the above Rules. The Respondent is also directed to deposit an amount of ₹ 8,50,442/- in the Consumer Welfare Fund of the Central and the Delhi State Governments, where the Respondent has made his supplies, as the recipients are not identifiable, as per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (c ) of the above Rules alongwith 18% interest payable from the dates from which the above amount was realised by the Respondent from his recipients till the date of its deposit. Penalty - HELD THAT:- The Respondent has denied the benefit of tax reduction to the customers in contravention of the provisions of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has thus profiteered as per the explanation attached to Section 171 of the Act. Therefore, he is apparently liable to be penalised as per Section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, a show cause notice be issued directing him to explain why the penalty prescribed under the above sub-Section should not be imposed on him.
-
2020 (6) TMI 82
Bail Application - creation of bogus firms/companies solely for the purpose of fraudlently creating and issuing GST invoices without any sale/purchase and actual movement of goods - HELD THAT:- It is deemed just and proper to grant bail to the petitioner(s) under Section 439 Cr.P.C. - it is directed that petitioner(s) - Gaurav Maheshwari S/o Sampat Lal Maheshwari shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.146/2018 of Police Station Sardarpura, Jodhpur provided he/she/they execute(s) a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- and two sureties of ₹ 50,000/- each. This Court is of the view that in the prevailing circumstances of complete lock-down amidst spread of COVID-19, furnishing of two sureties will be difficult on the one hand and the same may pose eminent threat to the concerned. It is, therefore, ordered that the petitioner(s) shall be released on bail upon furnishing the personal bond. He/She/They may furnish requisite sureties by 30 th May, 2020 to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
-
Income Tax
-
2020 (6) TMI 109
Condonation of delay - Delay in filing of the appeal is of 1744 days - Delay in filing of appeal is in reference to the Manager, who said to be ill - as per HC no ground to condone the delay - application for condonation of delay is dismissed - HELD THAT:- No reason to interfere. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 108
TDS on amount appropriated towards the Pension Fund Corpus - sums paid by the fourth respondent Bank to the members of the petitioner Association towards salary and arrears of salary, pursuant to the provisions of the 9th Bipartite Settlement -fourth respondent Bank rejected the request of the petitioner Association for exclusion of 2.8 times of pay deducted towards pension fund gap, from the salary revision arrears paid to its members, who had opted for II option for pension, from the taxable income for the calculation of income tax pertaining to the financial year 2010-11 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner Association is directed to submit a representation with respect to nil/lower deduction of income tax to the authorities concerned, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such submission being made, the authorities concerned shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner Association within a period of four weeks thereafter. Till such time, the order of interim injunction already granted, shall stand extended.
-
2020 (6) TMI 107
Income tax Refund claim - failure to issue refund upon processing of return u/s 143(1) - HELD THAT:- Though vide Press Release dated 8th April, 2020 issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government due to onset of the Covid-19 virus has directed release of all pending income tax refunds up to ₹ 5 lakh with immediate effect, yet petitioner s refund remains unprocessed. Notice issued. List the matter on 24th June, 2020.
-
2020 (6) TMI 106
Public interest litigation - apprehension of misuse of provident fund scheme - Seeking deduction of TDS from the provident fund account of the Retd. Employees who have availed the option to continue their GPF account - respondents be directed to recover the tax from the subscribers from whom account respondent have failed to deduct TDS - HELD THAT:- Indisputably, the petitioner is not a retired government servant. It is thus clear that the petitioner failed to show that he is acting bonafide and having sufficient interest with the proceedings of PIL. We are of the opinion that the amendment dated 28.06.2012 (Annex.3) made by the State Government whereby the Scheme impugned is implemented, is not invalid or contrary to the Rules. We are of the considered view that no ground for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this petition filed by way of Public Interest Litigation, is made out as the issue raised in the instant petition does not fall within the purview of Public Interest Litigation but is nothing more than a publicity interest litigation.
-
2020 (6) TMI 105
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - estimation of net profit - Addition to assessee s income is made on estimate basis - HELD THAT:- It is a settled principle of law that where addition to assessee s income is made on estimate basis penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed. The different judicial form has already decided in favour of the assessee on the identical issue, of such is passed in the case of Naresh Chand Agarwal [ 2013 (6) TMI 68 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ] We have further gone through the written submission made before the authorities below by the appellant. It is on record that the addition was made on estimation of net profit @ 1.5% by the Ld. AO and hence we find there is no merit in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Decided in favour of assessee Order being pronounced after ninety (90) days of hearing - COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown - HELD THAT:- Taking note of the extraordinary situation in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, the period of lockdown days need to be excluded. See case of DCIT vs. JSW Limited [ 2020 (5) TMI 359 - ITAT MUMBAI ]
-
2020 (6) TMI 104
Loss on pictures - deduction in respect of expenditure on acquisition of distribution rights of feature films - Assessee submitted that since Sections 36 37 of the I.T. Act are general provisions under which the assessee can claim set off of losses, it is to be accordingly allowed - whether the provisions of Rules 9A and 9B are applicable to compute the cost of acquisition of a movie and not with regard to loss incurred by an assessee? - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the rival contentions and Rule 9B of the I.T.Rules, we find that the assessee is not claiming the expenditure incurred on the acquisition of movies but the assessee is claiming loss due to non-recovery of advances paid. Rule 9B only provides a method of computing deduction available in respect of expenditure on acquisition of distribution rights of feature films, but does not address the sequence in which deductions are to be allowed. Rule 9B does not preclude the assessee from claiming the loss on the distribution of feature films in the year in which such loss is incurred by the assessee. We have gone through the copies of the ledger a/c of advances received and written off which are now filed as additional evidence and find that the assessee has incurred loss on the distribution of each of the films which was been claimed by the assessee during the relevant A.Y. Any debt which has become bad, can be written off as bad debt without having to establish that it has really become bad. In the case before us, the assessee has claimed to incurred Loss due to non-recovery of advances and therefore, claimed it as loss which is not impermissible under the law. However, the additional evidence filed by the assessee needs verification. Therefore, the issue is set aside to the file of AO for denovo consideration. The assessee s grounds of appeal on this issue are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance of expenditure debited to P L A/c on the ground that it is not supported by pucca bills - AO has disallowed only 5% of the expenditure and not 20% as alleged by the assessee in its grounds of appeal. Except raising the above grounds, the assessee has not be able to establish as to why 5% disallowance is unreasonable. Therefore, the grounds against this disallowance are rejected.
-
2020 (6) TMI 103
Addition u/s 14A - Whether no exempt income is earned by the assessee ? - HELD THAT:- It has been categorically held by the Assessing Officer that no exempt income is earned by the assessee during the year. Thus issue is squarely concluded in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Limited Vs. CIT [2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein it has been held that Section 14A envisages that there has to be an actual receipt of exempt income during the relevant previous year for purpose of making any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Thus,we hold that the learned CIT (Appeals) has correctly deleted the addition. Thus, ground No. 1 of the appeal of the ld. Assessing Officer is dismissed. Deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) - HELD THAT:- We hold that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amounts advanced for business transaction between the parties, namely, the assessee company and M/s. Pee Empro Exports (P) Ltd. was not such to fall within the definition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). The present appeal is therefore dismissed The transactions in the client ledger accounts, are transactions entered in the ordinary course of business and are relating to sale/purchase of share/currency/derivatives/commodities only. Therefore, I further hold that since these transactions are trading/business transactions, accordingly, provisions of section 2(22)(e), do not apply to the facts of the case of the appellant. Accordingly, the addition made by the A.O. on account of deemed dividend is hereby deleted. Capital gain computation - claim of the depreciation on the block of the building‟ owned by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business of the assessee on which depreciation is claimed - calculating the depreciation the provisions of Section 50C - HELD THAT:- Merely because the seller agreed to pay and discharge the outstanding dues and liabilities in respect of the share in the premises , it does not amount that the assessee has not transferred/sold the property during the year. Depreciation is allowable to the assessee on the written down value which is defined under section 43 (6) of the act. According to the subsection 43(6)( C ) (i)(b) the block of the assets is to be reduced by the monies payable in respect of any asset falling within that block which is sold or discarded or demolished or destroyed during the previous year. Therefore, definitely assessee has sold during the year this immovable property by which the written down value of the block of the asset should be reduced. Now the question is whether it should be reduced by the value as determined under section 50C of the act or actual money received by the assessee. The provisions of section 50C cannot be incorporated in the computation of block of the assets for the simple reason that it only substitutes the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer for the purposes of section 48‟ only. We direct AO to reduce the written down value of the asset only by ₹ 2 crores, which has been received by the assessee on sale of the above property. Accordingly ground number 2 and 3 are disposed off holding that assessee has requested to reduce Written down value of Building block by ₹ 2 crores being the actual sale consideration instead of ₹ 2 8714500 being the Stamp duty value of the property is acceded to. Thus, opening double DVD of the block building stood at ₹ 3 5197290/ is required to be reduced by ₹ 2 crores only, thereby the WDV remains of ₹ 1, 51,97,290/- on which the assessee would be entitled to the depreciation @ 10 % amounting to ₹ 15,19,729/ , against which the assessee has claimed depreciation of ₹ 35,19,729/ therefore difference of the depreciation excess claimed by the assessee is ₹ 20 lakhs instead of ₹ 2963061/ . Thus excess depreciation disallowance of ₹ 20 lakhs is confirmed. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (6) TMI 102
Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of expenditure on account of exempt income - HELD THAT:- There is no correlation between the investment made in the shares of other company with the borrowing of funds during the year. Hence, the CIT(A) rightly held that interest disallowed has to be restricted to the extent of funds invested in Glofin Investment Finance during the year. As this working the CIT(A) held that the interest pertaining to the investments made during the year works out to ₹ 67,821/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii). The disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) being % of the value of average investments had been rightly disallowed at ₹ 2,97,725/-. Thus, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Ground No. 1 is dismissed. Disallowance made u/s 36(1)(iii) - interest paid for money borrowed - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of the facts, it can be seen that the loan was taken for the purpose of equity infusion in the associate concerns. Since, the entire fund was diverted for equity infusion in the associate concerns, the AO held that the funds borrowed were not utilized for business purposes. Hence, interest expenditure and other associate expenditure were not incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The reliance of the decision in case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [2015 (11) TMI 1314 - SUPREME COURT] will not be applicable in the present case as advance to subsidiary company became imperative as a business expediency in view of undertaking given to financial institutions by assessee to effect that it would provide additional margin to subsidiary company to meet working capital for meeting any cash losses. But in the present case, funds were specifically borrowed for infusion of equity in the associate concerns which is totally different aspect from the case of Hero Cycles (Supra). Hence the CIT(A) rightly confirmed the addition. Ground No. 2 is dismissed. Addition u/s 56 (2) (viiib) - valuation of premium received on issue of shares - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the assessee is saying that value of the shares owned by the assessee company of the listed companies which are recorded at the book value (cost price) is far less than the listed price (traded price) of those shares, therefore, same should be taken while determining the fair market value of its shares in accordance with the provisions of section 56 (2) of the act. Principally, we agree with the argument of the Ld. AR, that if assessee can substantiate that fair market value of its shares is higher than the valuation determined in accordance with the rules framed there under, then, higher of the above should be considered for working out income u/s 56 (2) of the act. Assessee has to satisfy the assessing officer and it is only the satisfaction of the assessing officer, which is required for working out fair market value of shares. As the lower authorities stated that assessee has not produced anything to substantiate the above claim of the assessee, they disbelieved it. Before us, assessee has submitted the quotation at the National stock exchange of share price of Hanung Toys and Textiles Ltd on 7 November 2012 at ₹ 138.80 per share. These details have not been noted by the lower authorities. In view of the above facts, we set aside this ground back to the file of the AO with a direction to the assessee to substantiate the fair market value of its shares by incorporating the market value of the listed equities owned by it, as demonstrated before us. AO may examine the claim of the assessee on the merits of the case and then decide the fair market value of the shares of the assessee company as on the date on which the new issue of shares has been allotted to the new allottees. Appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction.
-
2020 (6) TMI 101
TP Adjustment - Selection of MAM - Addition of local trading segment of the cosmetic products - TPO Rejected TNMM method adopted by assessee and proceeded to adopt Resale price Method - HELD THAT:- As there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned dispute resolution panel in assessee s own case for assessment year 14-15 [ 2019 (4) TMI 1866 - ITAT DELHI] has also rejected Modi care Limited as comparable and accepted the transactional net margin method as the most appropriate method, we respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench direct learned TPO to adopt transactional net margin method as the most appropriate method and also not to take Modicare Ltd as the comparable. Thus, we have held that transactional net margin method is the most appropriate method, the TPO is directed to examine the international transactions entered into by the assessee applying that method and compare the margin of the assessee with the comparable companies selected by the assessee.
-
2020 (6) TMI 100
Subsidy receipt - Addition of industries promotion assistance [IPA] received as subsidies by assessee under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme 2000 - capital receipt OR revenue receipt - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- We note that the Govt. of West Bengal has decided to grant the subsidy by way of IPA for setting up of large/medium/small scale eligible unit which is prescribed in the WBIS 2000 and the unit has to be set up in either group B or C areas prescribed in the said scheme (WBIS 2000). We note that the assessee had set up a new unit in the Bankura District of West Bengal area which falls in the group C area of the Scheme WBIS 2000. The object of the subsidy in this case in was for setting up of unit in group B or C areas as spelled out in the WBIS scheme 2000 and since the object of the assistance under the subsidy scheme was to enable the assessee to set up unit, the receipt of subsidy was on capital account. We note that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the subsequent decision after considering the Sahaney Steel Press Works Pvt. Ltd. [ 1997 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT ] AND in the case of CIT Vs. Pony Sugars Chemicals Ltd. [ 2008 (9) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT ] has made it clear that for determining the nature of the incentive/ subsidy, the object for which the subsidy/assistance given will be the deciding factor and the form or the method of the payment through which the subsidy is given is irrelevant. Merely because the amount of subsidy was equivalent to 75% of the sales tax paid by the beneficiary does not imply that the same was in the form of refund of sales tax paid. Therefore, since the subsidy was for setting up of large/medium/small scale eligible unit in group B and C areas in the State of West Bengal and the competent authority has issued the eligibility certificate (West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.) to the assessee and since the assessee fulfills all the conditions as laid in the WBIS 2000 scheme, the industrial promotion assistance it received was on capital account. In the light of the discussion above and relying on the ratio laid in the decision of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in M/s. Rasoi Ltd. [ 2011 (5) TMI 23 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT ] we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) since the subsidy/IPA was given to the assessee for setting up of mega project/unit in the district of Bankura, West Bengal. - Decided against revenue. Order being pronounced after ninety (90) days of hearing - COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown - HELD THAT:- Taking note of the extraordinary situation in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, the period of lockdown days need to be excluded. See case of DCIT vs. JSW Limited [ 2020 (5) TMI 359 - ITAT MUMBAI ]
-
2020 (6) TMI 99
PE in India - India-Spain DTAA - business profit carried out through PE - Services rendered from outside India - HELD THAT:- There is no such material or finding in the impugned order that any such kind of project or supervisory activity was carried out for more than six months in India. There has to be some kind of onsite planning and supervision activity which is completely absent here in this case, firstly, for the reason that the services have been rendered from outside India and secondly, there is no finding that any personnel of assessee have been performing any kind of such activity in India for a period of more than six months. Activity duration can be seen once any kind of such activities has been carried out on any site or any project in India, which finding is absent completely in the impugned orders, except for hypothesis and presumption without looking the real activity and the income earned. It has to come on record that there was some kind of actual activity which was carried out especially prior to 01.09.2006 through any fixed placed of business or through any personnel in India having crossed the threshold period of six months. We hold that there is no Permanent Establishments during the relevant assessment year 2007-08 for the activities relating to DPIR and engineering services from which the assessee has earned the revenue and same cannot be taxed as business profit carried out through PE in India. It is in the nature of FTS which is to be taxed in accordance with Article 13(4) of India-Spain DTAA. - Decided in favour of the assessee.
-
2020 (6) TMI 98
Depreciation in relation to assets leased out by the assessee given under finance lease - HELD THAT:- Assessee has produced a few of them and the Tribunal considered it proper that at least some more should be produced for examination before the AO and the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh decision in the light of the judgment in the case of ICDS Vs CIT [2013 (1) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT] with direction that if the terms and conditions mentioned in the lease agreement are similar to the terms and conditions that are mentioned by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of ICDS Vs CIT(supra) and if there is no material variation in the context then depreciation has to be granted to the assessee as claimed. In the present year also, we restore this matter back to the file of AO for fresh decision with similar direction. Ground no.1 2 stands allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2020 (6) TMI 97
Deduction u,/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) - AO observed that the interest earned by the co-operative society from its investments in co-operative society shall only qualify for deduction under Section 80P and interest earned by the co-operative society from its scheduled banks does not qualify for deduction - HELD THAT:- As decided in M/S. THE JAYANAGAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7 [2] [1] , BANGALORE. [ 2019 (7) TMI 1219 - ITAT BANGALORE] benefit of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) is only on income which is assessable under the head Income from Business . Interest earned on investment of surplus funds not immediately required in short term deposits and securities by a Co-operative Society providing credit facilities to members or marketing agricultural produce to members is not business income but income from other sources and the society is not entitled to special deduction. Therefore whether the source of funds were Assessee's own funds or out of liability was not subject matter of the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the decision cited by the learned DR. To this extent the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumukur Merchants Souharda Co-operative Ltd. ( [ 2015 (2) TMI 995 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] still holds good. Hence, on this aspect, the issue should be restored back to the AO for a fresh decision after examining the facts in the light of these judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of The Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.(supra) and of Hon'ble Karnataka high Court rendered in the case of Tumukur Merchants Souharda Co-operative Ltd.(supra) - Assessee appeal allowed for statistical purposes
-
Customs
-
2020 (6) TMI 96
Deemed export - supply to SEZ unit - recovery of customs duty - Forbearing the 2nd respondent from making payment against the bank Guarantee - the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsels appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that the remedy available to the petitioner as against recovery proceedings is only before the competent jurisdictional authorities of Karnataka State and hence, the petitioner may be given reasonable time to approach the authorities concerned for appropriate remedy - HELD THAT:- The petition is disposed off with the direction that the recovery proceedings by the respondents shall be kept in abeyance for a period of four weeks from today. The petitioner is granted four weeks time to approach the jurisdictional competent authorities before the State of Karnataka for appropriate remedy. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to avail this opportunity within a time frame stipulated by this Court, it is open to the respondents to take appropriate action in the manner known to law.
-
2020 (6) TMI 95
Valuation of imported goods - industrial valves of various types - international transaction of the appellant with their principals and affiliates - rejection of transaction value - HELD THAT:- The OIA is very cryptic and does not give any cogent reasons for rejecting the declared assessable value. Moreover, the Appellate Authority does not discuss the submissions of the appellants as to why the price at which M/s Sergi have imported are at variance from that of the importer. There is a pre-notified inter-company price list and the prices were as declared in the same. It is not correct to reject the transaction value just because there are imports at a higher price by third parties. Also, as submitted by the appellants, the Appellate Authority did not discuss on the methodology to arrive at the import price having rejected the declared value. No directions are given to the lower authorities about the manner in which the valuation is to be arrived at and the rules thereunder to be applied. Such an order cannot be implemented. The grounds held to be acceptable to reject the declared prices are not strong - the OIA is not legally acceptable - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (6) TMI 94
Classification of imported goods - Squalene - whether classified under CTSH 15042090 or CTSH 29012990? - penalty - HELD THAT:- The chemical reports issued by CIFT and Customs Laboratory indicated the impugned product to be of marine origin. It is also confirmed by CIFT that the sample analysis was done using Perkin Elmer Gas Chromatograph FID equipped with a column specific for the analysis of fatty acids and hydrocarbons in oils. Therefore, it was confirmed that the sample was of marine origin and rich in Squalene. We find that whereas heading 1504 covers fats and oils of fish or marine mammals 2901 covers acyclic hydrocarbons - Heading 2901 refers to saturated and unsaturated acyclic hydrocarbons like ethylene, propene, butene, acetylene, heptane etc. which are organic compounds. Going by the literature available and the chemical reports, the impugned products is of marine origin and therefore can appropriately be classified under 1504 rather than 2901. The appellants have taken a plea that their product contains unsaponifiable matter in the range of 85% and therefore, it cannot be classified under 1504 as oil - We find that there is no reference to the percentage of unsaponifiable matter with respect to the classification under heading 1504. Even going by the principles of ejusdem generis‟ or Noscitur a sociis‟, the impugned goods being of animal origin are rightly classifiable under Chapter 1504. The test reports give a fair idea of the nature and characteristics of the product. In the instant case, CIFT and Customs Laboratories have reported that the impugned product is fish oil. Therefore, we find that it cannot be classified under Chapter 2901 as saturated or unsaturated acyclic hydrocarbons along with ethylene, propene, butene, acetylene, heptene etc. It is of a great common sense that any organic matter would contain hydrocarbons and for that very reason, it cannot be classified under the heading applicable to hydrocarbons. If such an approach is taken entire Customs Tariff as far as it deals with living beings, goods or plant or animal origin would become redundant. Moreover, there is no reason as to why a report given by a professional institute such as CIFT and accredited laboratory such as Customs Laboratory - the report given by CIFT and Customs Laboratory cannot be ignored. The importers, on the other hand, did not produce any test report in their favour. The appellants have taken the plea that they have been importing the impugned products over the years and the classification of the same was being accepted by the Customs authorities. There is no estoppel in revenue matters and Customs are not bound by any contradiction taken in the past owing to different set of circumstances and facts of the case. Based on the submissions of established practice penalty cannot be imposed just because Customs authorities have taken steps to correct the classification. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants, have requested that in case it is held that the goods are not permissible to be imported, the same may be allowed to be re-exported - such a request needs to be made before the proper authority who will take a decision in accordance with law and facts of the case. The appeal is allowed to the extent of setting aside the penalty - other pats upheld.
-
Corporate Laws
-
2020 (6) TMI 93
Disqualification from appointment as a Director - change of status of the petitioner in the records of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from the list of disqualified directors - unfreezing of Directors Identification Number and the Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) of the petitioner - Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- It is apparent that the petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents No. 1 and 2 not to consider the petitioner as a disqualified director under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 and for a further direction to change the status of the petitioner in the records of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from the list of disqualified directors and consequently unfreeze the Directors Identification Number and the Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) of the petitioner - The pre requisition of issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus is that there must be a legal right of the litigant, such right must be violated by the respondents and upon right being violated, there must be a representation for removal of such violation and upon consideration thereof, such request for removing the violation be refused. In the instant case, the petition is devoid of any material which may indicate as to a legal right in favour of the petitioner for being removed as a disqualified director or to restore the Director Identification Number and Digital Signature Certificate of the petitioner so as to enable the Court to determine his legal right, if any. In the circumstance, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to make a representation before the Registrar of Companies, Guwahati being the respondent No.2 as regards his claim for continuing with the Director Identification Number (DIN) and Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) as well as to exclude his name from the list of disqualified directors - It is provided that the petitioner shall file any such application if so advised within a period of 7 days from today. In the event, such application is not filed, the continuation of the interim order dated 20.02.2020 shall remain withdrawn and the Registrar Companies will be at liberty to take any action against the petitioner. In the event, the application is filed, the interim order shall continue till the passing of the reasoned order by the Director of Companies. Petition disposed off.
-
PMLA
-
2020 (6) TMI 92
Grant of Anticipatory bail - case of petitioner is that the Accused petitioner was not even made an accused in the original case emanating from FIR No. 251/2015 registered with the Anti Corruption Bureau against other co-accused persons - HELD THAT:- Perusal of material on record and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, specially to the fact that revision petition challenging the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by the trial court, has already been dismissed by a coordinate bench of this court as well as by the Hon ble Supreme Court, similarly situated co-accused have already surrendered before the trial court and looking to the fact that accused petitioner is involved in serious economic offence involving huge sum of money and keeping in mind the principle of law enunciated by Hon ble apex court in P. CHIDAMBARAM VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [ 2019 (9) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT] , but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court does not deem it to be a fit case to enlarge the accused petitioner on anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application is dismissed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 91
Grant of Bail - Money Laundering - Scheduled offences - allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner amazed huge amount of movable and immovable property from his criminal activity in connection with twenty-six criminal cases against the petitioner - HELD THAT:- There is no material to substantiate that the petitioner would tamper with the evidence or be non-co-operative in the trial. In GURBAKSH SINGH SIBBIA VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB [ 1980 (4) TMI 295 - SUPREME COURT] , the Constitution Bench of the Hon ble Supreme Court said that the bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. The main object is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. The proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 is applicable in this matter. Considering the entire facts aforesaid, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of ₹ 75,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court below where the case is pending in connection with Complaint Case.
-
2020 (6) TMI 90
Vires of Clause (ii) of sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - amendment in section 45 - applicability of decision in the case of NIKESH TARACHAND SHAH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. [ 2017 (11) TMI 1336 - SUPREME COURT] where the Supreme Court has declared Clause (ii) of sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India - amendment in section 45, subsequent to the Supreme Court s decision, in case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah. Whether the amendment introduced in Section 45 of the Act, by Act No. 13 of 2018, shall amount to re-framing the entire Section 45 and thereby reviving and resurrecting the requirement of twin conditions under sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the Act for grant of bail? HELD THAT:- In view of clear language used in paragraph 46 of the Supreme Court s decision in case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah, there is no hesitation in reaching a definite conclusion that the amendment in sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the Act introduced after Supreme Court s decision in case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah does not have the effect of reviving the twin conditions for grant of bail, which have been declared ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. There are no force in submission made on behalf of Union of India that a different view has been taken in case of P. CHIDAMBARAM VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [ 2019 (9) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT] by the Supreme Court than the view taken in case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah on the question of constitutional validity of sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the Act. There is no discussion in this regard in the said judgment in case of P. Chidambaram . The application for anticipatory bail in case of P. Chidambaram was rejected on merits of the allegation and other materials. Merits of the case - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is the widow of deceased younger brother of the main accused Ashok Kumar Yadav against whom there are 26 criminal cases and in course of investigation carried out against him in respect of commission of offence under the Act, it emerged that he had purchased properties in the name of the petitioner and her deceased husband to the tune of ₹ 5,66,000/-. Further, a sum of ₹ 6,95,000/- has been allegedly deposited in the savings bank account of the petitioner by the said accused Ashok Kumar Yadav. In addition, a sum of ₹ 2,99,500/- is lying in the account of the deceased husband of the petitioner. Considering the nature of allegation, a case of grant of anticipatory bail is made out - Application allowed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 89
Money Laundering - Freezing of petitioner's Bank Account - proceeds of crime - Permission to pay the salaries to the employees for the month of April, 2020 by encashing FDRs of equivalent amounts - HELD THAT:- The petitioners are permitted: (a) to discharge their liabilities towards salaries, bonus and reimbursements payable to their employees; (b) to make payments towards provident fund, professional tax, TDS on salaries and TDS on non-salary payouts from the bank accounts (including fixed deposits) that are subject matter of action by respondents Nos. 2 and 3, subject to verification by the concerned respondents of the list of employees and the amounts due (towards all heads of permitted payouts), for which purpose the petitioners shall furnish to respondent No. 3 a list of employees to whom salaries/bonus/reimbursements are required to be paid, to enable the respondents to verify the same, which verification will be done by the respondents with 7 days of such list being furnished. Payouts are being permitted only towards the above heads/ purposes and not any of the other heads indicates/tabulated in the petitions. If the respondents have any doubt as to the employee/s and/or the dues payable, they shall communicate the same to the petitioners ; and no disbursement shall be made by the petitioners to such employee and/or of such amount. List on 20th May 2020.
-
Service Tax
-
2020 (6) TMI 88
Refund of Service tax - appellants have preferred a refund claim stating that the same was in respect of food served on which VAT was paid - HELD THAT:- The Revenue has proceeded on certain surmises and conjectures. The two major surmises were that with the usage of LCD display, etc., it is evident that the banquet halls were let out temporarily for a day and that the charges for the same are inbuilt into the bill raised by the appellant towards the food charges and this inbuilt value needs to be treated as consideration towards the Mandap Keeper services provided by the appellant. We are afraid that it is not open to the Revenue to decide the taxability of a new entry merely on the basis of imagination. For any service to be held to be taxable, there should be a service provider, service recipient and consideration for the service. It cannot be imagined that such consideration was inbuilt. It is incumbent upon Revenue to show such consideration in quantifiable terms in order to levy service tax, though on a discounted value. Revenue could not place any proof in the form of a bill, etc., to substantiate the allegation that the banquet halls were rented out for a consideration - the department s stand is not substantiated so far as the reduction of refund is concerned on merits. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (6) TMI 87
Renting of immovable property Service - providing interconnected services to the film distributors - Department believed that for the said renting of immovable property service, the appellant received charges in the garb of sharing cum / theatre hire but did not discharge the service tax liability - HELD THAT:- For the appellant to be providing any taxable service to the distributor prior to 1 July 2012 it is necessary that the service provided should be by renting of immovable property or any other service in relation to such renting for use in the course of or for furtherance of, business or commerce. Renting of immovable property has been defined under section 65(90a) of the Finance Act to include renting, letting, leasing, licensing, or other similar arrangements of immovable property for use in the course or furtherance of business or commerce. It is very difficult to even visualise that the appellant is providing any service to the distributor by renting of immovable property or even any other service in relation to such renting. The agreements that have been executed between the appellant and the distributors confer rights upon the appellant to screen the film for which the appellant is making payment to the distributors. The distributors are not making any payment to the appellant. Thus, no consideration flows from the distributors to the appellant for the alleged service. It is not possible to accept the reasonings given by the Commissioner (Appeals) for confirming the demand of service tax under renting of immovable property for the simple reason that the appellant has not provided any service to the distributors nor the distributors have made any payment to the appellant as consideration for the alleged service. In fact, the appellant who has paid money to the distributors for the screening rights conferred upon the appellant. The position in law does not change with effect from 1 July, 2012 because even under section 66B of the Finance Act, service tax is levied on the value of all services, other than those services specified in the negative list, provided or agreed to be provided in the taxable territory by one person to another. Though, renting of immovable property is a declared service under section 66E of the Finance Act, then too under section 67(1) of the Finance Act, the value shall, in a case where the provision of service is for a consideration in money, be the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service provided or to be provided by him. The appellant is not receiving any payment to the distributor and, therefore, no service can be said to have been provided by the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
Central Excise
-
2020 (6) TMI 86
Quantum of penalty - benefit u/s 11AC of CEA - duty is deposited prior to show cause notice along with a part of the penalty - HELD THAT:- While deciding the issue in de novo proceedings, penalties as per statute are required to be imposed. If the provisions of the statute required imposition of less penalty, where the duty and part of penalty has already been deposited, the same were required to be followed by the lower authorities. Matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority to fix the penal liability in terms of provisions of Section 11AC - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
CST, VAT & Sales Tax
-
2020 (6) TMI 85
Payment of amount due to the Government - priority of charge arising out of sales tax arrears, vis-a-vis the arrears due to others including the petitioner mortgagee - sale of the defaulter's properties - creation of rights between the mortgagor and mortgagee bank - right in personam - HELD THAT:- Definitely, the sales tax arrears take precedence over the claims of an existing mortgagee also. In the present case, the respondent issued the notice along with Form B6 on 18.09.2006 to the petitioner, demanding the arrears of sales tax to the tune of ₹ 4,80,05,508/- payable by the company, which, according to the petitioner, was received only on 12.10.2006. In the mean while, the auction was confirmed in favour of M/s.Annam Steels Pvt. Ltd and the sale certificate was issued to them under the SARFAESI Act on 26.09.2006 and the available sale proceeds were distributed to all the secured creditors and the other lenders by 30.09.2006. But, in terms of the decision in STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR VERSUS NATIONAL IRON AND STEEL ROLLING CORPORATION AND OTHERS [ 1994 (12) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT ], the demand raised by the respondent prior to the appropriation of the sale proceeds, will have precedence over the claims of the petitioner - mortgagee. Hence, the petitioner is bound to pay the sale proceeds realised by them towards partial fulfillment of the demand raised by the respondent - Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 84
Levy of VAT - Renting of space - Transfer of Right to use - transfer of right to use of the space to the mobile service providers as these companies were having access of the equipment, infrastructure and space for their use - whether within the scope of VAT or not - Section 48-A of the TNVAT Act, 2006 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is a provider of Passive Infrastructure Service for the Mobile Telecommunication Operators (MTO). The petitioner acquired such facilities from existing Mobile Telecommunication Operators (MTO). The petitioner was incorporated with view to reduce the cost of telecom service provided by Mobile Telecommunication Operators (MTO). Thus, same shelter and tower could be used by two or more Mobile Telecommunication Operators (MTO) to receive and transmit signals. The petitioner has not only offered facility to mount the mobile operator s RF antenna at a particular height and direction on the top of the tower and offered required level of temperature (i.e) below 35 degree Celsius as to protect the equipments - Apart from that the petitioner has also offered Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) for converting electricity AC current from 220, Volts AC current into (-) 48 DC which is essentially required to run the mobile operators transmission equipments without disruption. This activity is performed by Power Management System of the petitioner. Reliance can be placed in the case of M/S. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. ASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED) VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) , COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, SERVICE TAX GROUP I, UNION OF INDIA [ 2020 (6) TMI 57 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] where it was held that The business model is not based on exclusivity. It is on a shared usage basis of the facility viz., passive infrastructure consisting of temporary shelter, Mast, AC, Genset etc. Therefore, there is no deemed sale within the meaning of Article 366(29-A)(d) of the Constitution of India and Secion 2(33)(iv) of the Act so as to attract a charge under Section 4 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. - the reasoning given in the case is fairly applicable to the facts of the present Writ Petitions. Petition allowed.
-
Indian Laws
-
2020 (6) TMI 83
Maintainability of petition - Jurisdiction of Court - Time Limitation - exclusion of time period of lockdown for calculating the limitation for presentation of cheque/demand draft as directed by the Reserve Bank of India vide Notification dated 04.11.2011 - HELD THAT:- This is the policy decisions to be taken up by the Reserve Bank of India regarding which the Court cannot issue any direction. The writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is dismissed as not maintainable.
|
9911796707
