Addl. CIT Vs Jasper Infotech Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Expenses w.r.t promotion for brand ‘Snapdeal’ are revenue in nature The Hon’ble Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v. M/S Jasper Infotech Private Limited [ITA No 2605/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-2013) dated November 10, 2021] held that expenses involved for […]
CESTAT set aside the order passed by the Revenue Department rejecting the appeal filed for refund claim by the assessee. Held that, the refund claim of input services under GST cannot be denied solely on technical reasons.
HC quashed the order of the Appellate Authority refusing the appeal filed by the assessee on the wrong GST portal. Further held that, uploading of an appeal may be before the wrong portal, but it is obligatory on the part of the authorities concerned in such an event to bring it to the notice of the assessee that the appeal has been filed before the wrong authority so that the necessary action can be taken.
SC held that, tax evasion cannot be presumed on mere non-extension of validity of e-way bill by the assessee due to traffic blockage and agitation, for which the Revenue Authority is responsible for not providing smooth passage of traffic. Further, imposed a sum of INR 69,000/- on the Revenue Department towards the cost payable to the assessee, and to be recovered, directly from the persons responsible.
CESTAT set aside the order confirming the demand for reversal of CENVAT credit on the amount written off as bad debts. Further, held that there is no such provision in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 or in Finance Act, 1994 for reversal of CENVAT credit for the services provided for which no consideration for service provided is received by an assessee.
HC held that once the assessee is cooperating and has submitted the relevant documents to the Revenue Department then the bank accounts and Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) of such assessee to be unblocked upon the expiry of one year from the date of imposing such restrictions.
High Court observed that in the absence of specific mention of IGST and Compensation Cess in the Exemption Notification, only the BCD on the fair cost of repair charges, freight and insurance charges would be payable. The IGST and Compensation Cess would be wholly exempted. Therefore, the assessee could not be denied such exemption on reimport of repaired air-crafts and spare parts.
HC set aside the summons issued by the Revenue Department without any details of the inquiry, wherein the assessee was co-operating in furnishing the documents as requisitioned and to provide further details. Held that, summons is a last resort and are not to be issued in a casual manner.
HC dismissed the applicability of Circular in a petition challenging the conduct of alleged parallel investigation by various jurisdictional authorities and affirmed the investigations conducted various jurisdictional authorities of the Revenue Department into entities having common nexus. Held that, Circular cannot be extended to cover all and myriad situations that may arise in the administration and the functioning of the GST structure.
The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasijudicial proceedings.
