Kerala High Court Tax Annual Digest 2025

Direct Tax[Income Tax] Assessing Officer Not Only An Adjudicator But Also An Investigator, Cannot Remain Oblivious To Claim Without Enquiry: Kerala HCCase Title: Cochin International Airport Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income TaxCase Number: ITA NO. 77 OF 2018The Kerala High Court stated that the Income Tax Commissioner can exercise Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “The role of the assessing officer under the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not only that of an adjudicator but also of an investigator and he cannot remain oblivious in the face of a claim without any enquiry.”Money In Bank Account Is 'Property', Liable For Provisional Attachment U/S 281B Of Income Tax Act: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mohammed SalihCase Number: WA NO. 1413 OF 2024The Kerala High Court held that cash in bank account is a 'property' liable for provisional attachment under section 281B of the Income Tax Act.The Division Bench of Justices Sathish Ninan and Shoba Annamma Eapen observed that “mere fact that Bank account is not explicitly provided under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, unlike the GST Act, 2017 which specifically mentions the same, cannot lead to the conclusion that Bank account is not liable to be attached under Section 281 B of the Act.”Income Tax | Whether There Was Proper Notice Or Not Is Disputed Question Of Fact, Can't Be Challenged Under Article 226: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Aanjaly Sandeep Shetty v. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant CommissionerCase Number: WA NO. 712 OF 2023The Kerala High Court stated that the issue as to whether there was a proper notice or not is a disputed question of fact and cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.“…As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the question as to whether there was a proper notice or not is certainly a disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India” stated the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S.Income Tax Act | Principal Commissioner Has Authority To Cancel Registration Of Assessee Without Waiting For Decision From Assessing Authority: Kerala HCCase Title: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Last Hour MinistryCase Number: ITA NO. 20 OF 2023The Kerala High Court stated that principal commissioner has authority to cancel registration of assessee without waiting for decision from assessing authority.The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “the provisions of Section 12AA independently empower the Principal Commissioner to consider whether or not the circumstances mentioned in Section 12AA(3) and 12AA(4) of the Income Tax Act exist as a pre-condition for directing a cancellation of the registration that was granted to the Trust under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act.”Burden Is On Assessee To Show Entitlement For Capital Gains Tax Exemption On Sale Of Agricultural Land: Kerala High CourtCase Title: M J George (Died) v. Deputy Commissioner of Income TaxCase Number: ITA NO. 1 OF 2024The Kerala High Court stated that burden of proof is on assessee to prove that he is entitled to capital gains tax exemption on sale of agricultural land.The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “it is significant in this regard to observe that the claim of the assessee, being for exemption from the levy of income tax as applicable to capital gains, the burden of proof was on the assessee to show that he was entitled to exemption by virtue of the land sold by him being in the nature of agricultural land.”Income Tax Act | Order Passed By Commissioner U/S 263 Can't Be Construed As Closed Remand, No Need To Challenge Order Separately: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Malabar Institute of Medical Sciences Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income TaxCase Number: ITA NO. 11 OF 2025The Kerala High Court stated that the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be under any circumstances construed as a closed remand and there is no requirement to challenge the order under Section 263 separately.The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “In as much as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had decided the appeal preferred by the assessee against the revised assessment order on merits, it was incumbent upon the tribunal to have decided the appeal on merits rather than finding that the assessee ought to have questioned the order under Section 263 in a separate proceeding. Therefore, the tribunal erred egregiously in dismissing the appeal preferred by the assessee as 'not maintainable''.Income Tax | Amount Received As Compensation For Compulsory Acquisition Of Landed Property Is Income Under 'Capital...

Kerala High Court Tax Annual Digest 2025

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags