- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Quarterly Digest Of Tax Cases:...
Quarterly Digest Of Tax Cases: January-March, 2023
Mariya Paliwala
10 April 2023 2:54 PM GMT
Indirect TaxesSupreme CourtSabka Vishwas Scheme : Supreme Court Grants Relief To Company Which Missed Deadline Due To IBC MoratoriumCase Title: Shekhar Resorts Limited vs Union of IndiaCitation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 15No one can be expected to do the impossible, the Supreme Court remarked while granting relief to a company which could not avail the benefit of settlement of tax dues under...
Indirect Taxes
Supreme Court
Sabka Vishwas Scheme : Supreme Court Grants Relief To Company Which Missed Deadline Due To IBC Moratorium
Case Title: Shekhar Resorts Limited vs Union of India
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 15
No one can be expected to do the impossible, the Supreme Court remarked while granting relief to a company which could not avail the benefit of settlement of tax dues under “Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, due to moratorium imposed on it.
Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Condition To Deposit Rs 70 Lakhs In Case For Wrongfully Claiming ITC
Case Title: Subhash Chauhan Versus UOI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 61
The Supreme Court has overturned a bail condition imposed by the High Court that a person accused of illegally claiming Input Tax Credit must deposit Rs. 70 lakhs, the alleged amount of improperly claimed ITC.
'Premature For High Court To Opine On Tax Evasion': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Which Quashed Notice Under Section 130 CGST Act
Case Title: State of Punjab Versus Shiv Enterprises Civil Appeal No. 359 of 2023
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 56
Observing that it was "premature" on the part of the High Court to quash a show-cause notice issued under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act by invoking Article 226 jurisdiction, the Supreme Court recently set aside an order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The Supreme Court noted that there were allegations about evasion of tax and hence it was premature on the part of the High Court to opine anything on whether there was any evasion of the tax or not. The same was to be considered in an appropriate proceeding for which the notice under Section 130 of the Act was issued.
Case Title: M/s. Paranthaman Hydraulics and Equipments Versus State Of Tamil Nadu
The Supreme Court has stayed the order passed by the Madras High Court directing the payment of a minimum 4% tax on the manufacturing of the water borehole drilling rigs.
The division bench of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice C.T. Ravi Kumar has observed that tax at the rate of 4% has already been deposited by the petitioner. The direction in the order to pay another 4% shall remain in abeyance until the next date of listing.
KVAT Act | Dealer Claiming Input Tax Credit Must Prove Transaction Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court
Case Title: State of Karnataka v. M/s. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 187
The Supreme Court has held that under Section 70 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, a dealer claiming Input Tax Credit on purchase ought to prove and establish an actual physical movement of goods and the genuineness of the transaction. It noted that in order to establish the same, the dealer should furnish the name and address of the selling dealer, details of the vehicle which has delivered the goods, payment of freight charges, acknowledgment of taking delivery of goods, tax invoices and payment particulars, etc.
Only Retail Sale Can Claim Assessment Benefits Under Section 4A Of Central Excise Act : Supreme Court
Case Title: Commissioner Of Central Excise & Service Versus M/S. A.R. Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Etc.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 223
The Supreme Court has held that mere affixation of MRP does not make goods eligible for central excise duty exemption, and what is required along with the affixation is a mandate of law that directs the seller to affix such MRP.
Central Excise Act - To Be "Related Person", Buyer & Seller Must Have Direct Or Indirect Interest In Each Other’s Business : Supreme Court
Case Title: M/S Bilag Industries P. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Commr. Of Cen. Exc. Daman & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 257
The Supreme Court while ascertaining who is the “Related Party” under the Central Excise Act for the purpose of valuation held that before the clause in Section 4(4)(c) could be used, the buyer and seller had to be interested in one another's businesses. Since two-way traffic is required, there shouldn't be any one-way traffic.
Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S Balaji Exim Versus Commissioner, CGST
The Delhi High Court has held that allegations of availing of fake credit cannot be a ground for rejecting the refund applications unless it is established that the petitioner has not received the goods or paid for them.
Case Title: Anil Kumar Versus The Gst Commissioner, Cgst, And Central Excise And Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 253
The Delhi High Court has ordered the petitioner to reveal the name of the friend who fraudulently obtained a GSTIN using his credentials at the department.
The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has directed the petitioner to disclose the identity of his friend, to whom he claims to have handed over his identity documents, to the police authorities as well as to the state GST authorities. The petitioner shall fully cooperate with the concerned authorities and provide them with all the information as required.
Case Title: Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General) vs M/s R.P. Cargo Handling Services
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the expression ‘issuance of show cause notice’ in Regulation 20(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR), merely contemplates the dispatch of the notice and not its receipt by the Customs Broker, within the stipulated period.
Applications For Refund Of ITC Cannot Be Denied On Mere Suspicion: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s Balaji EXIM vs Commissioner, CGST and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 227
The Delhi High Court has held that applications for refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be rejected merely on suspicion and without any cogent material.
Case Title: Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes Versus Corsan Corviam Construction S.A.-Sadbhav Engineering Ltd.
The Delhi High Court has held that since the claim for a refund made by the assessee was embedded in its return and the assessee was not required to file a fresh claim.
The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has directed the Department to pay interest within 4 weeks.
Case Title: Sakshi Bahl Versus The Principal Additional Director General
The Delhi High Court has held that attachment of bank accounts is a draconian step and the action can only be taken in case conditions specified in Section 83 of the GST Act, are fully satisfied.
Case Title: Ram Prakash Chauhan Versus Commissioner of Delhi (GST)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 78
The Delhi High Court has held that the payment of tax and penalty to release the detained goods shall not be treated as "admission" on the part of the assessee.
The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the petitioner had paid the tax and penalty for the release of the goods and that the said payment was not voluntary. Neither the show-cause notice nor the order of demand clearly sets out the reason for imposing the tax liability as well as the penalty.
Case Title: Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Hqrs.) versus M/s Spraytec India Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 82
The Delhi High Court has ruled that merely because an officer of customs contemplates that a question may arise for consideration, does not mean that the question is “pending” consideration so as to bar the Customs Authority for Advance Ruling (CAAR) from deciding the issue in an application for advance ruling, under Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 28-I (2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
No Provision In GST Act for Confiscating Currency From The Premises: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Arvind Goyal CA Versus UOI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 83
The Delhi High Court ruled that there is no provision in the GST Act that would allow for the forcible removal of currency from the premises of any person.
The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the powers of search and seizure are draconian powers and must be exercised strictly in terms of the statute and only if the necessary conditions are satisfied.
VAT Department Not To Initiate Coercive Measures Against PSU Pawan Hans: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Pawan Hans Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Trade and Taxes
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 65
The Delhi High Court has granted a stay to helicopter charterer PSU Pawan Hans Ltd. against a VAT demand of Rs. 176 crores.
The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the issue needs consideration and directed the VAT department not to initiate coercive measures for recovery of the VAT demand confirmed by the Delhi VAT Tribunal in the interim.
Budgetary Support Under GST Regime Can’t Be Denied To Eligible Unit: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s Special Cables Pvt Ltd versus Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 120
The Delhi High Court has directed the revenue authorities to grant budgetary support to a manufacturing unit under the “Scheme of Budgetary Support under Goods and Services Tax (GST) Regime”, available to ‘eligible units’ located in specified States. The Court took note that the petitioner was eligible for exemption from Central Excise Duty prior to 01.07.2017, i.e., before the introduction of the GST regime in India, and thus, in terms of the scheme, it was entitled to avail budgetary support.
Case Title: Jindal Exports and Imports Pvt Ltd vs. Director General of Foreign Trade & Ors.
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a notification issued under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act), which empowers the Central Government to formulate and announce the foreign trade policy, cannot be applied retrospectively by the Central Government.
Bombay High Court
Clause Contained In The Tax Invoice Amounts To An Arbitration Clause: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd Versus MAD (India) Pvt.Ltd
The Bombay High Court has held that the clause contained in the invoices, which clearly stipulates a reference to arbitration, deserves to be construed as an arbitration clause.
The single bench of Justice Bharati Dangre has observed that any document in writing exchanged between the parties that provide a record of the agreement and in respect of which there is no denial by the other side would squarely fall within the ambit of Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and would amount to an arbitration clause.
Case Title: Rohit Enterprises Versus The Commissioner State GST Bhavan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 108
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has held that the provisions of the GST enactment cannot be interpreted so as to deny the right to carry on trade and commerce to any citizen or subject.
Case Title: Rochem India Pvt. Ltd. Versus CBIC
Bombay High Court Directs Release Of Seized Gutka And Pan-Masala On Furnishing The Bank Guarantee Of Rs. 27.84 Lakhs
Case Title: State of Maharashtra Versus Mahabal Enterprises
The Bombay High Court has directed to release the Gutka and Pan-Masala, which were banned in the state of Maharashtra, after furnishing the bank guarantee of Rs. 27,84,000.
Who Is The Proper Authority To Decide IGST Refund? Bombay High Court Directs The Dept. To Decide
The Bombay High Court has directed the department to decide who has the proper authority to decide on an IGST refund.
The division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Abhay Ahuja has noted that the customs authorities claimed that the GST authority is the proper officer for processing refund claims, whereas the GST authorities claim that it is the customs officer.
Madras High Court
Case Title: Tvl.Thiruvannamalaiyar Transport Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 24
The Madras High Court has imposed a minor penalty and held that the expiry of the E-way bill does not create any scope for evasion.
The single bench of Justice M. Sunder has observed that assuming there was no breakdown and assuming the portal was active, the maximum penalty would be Rs. 5,000.
Case Title: M/s. Raju Construction & Ors. versus The Government of India & Ors.
The Madras High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging Notification No.6/2015-Service Tax, dated 01.03.2015, which withdrew service tax exemption on services in nature of works contract, as granted under the Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012-Service Tax, dated 20.06.2012.
Case Title: M/s.Tirupur Sree Annapoorna Versus Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 3
The Madras High Court, while analysing the growing trend of tax evasion, has stated that companies, firms, or entities that evade tax payments are liable to be punished under criminal charges with substantial penalties.
Refund Or Carry Forward The ITC To GST Regime Is Dealer’s Choice: Madras High Court
Case Title: Easwaran Brothers India Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 4
The Madras High Court has held that the dealer has two options: refund or carry forward the ITC to the GST regime.
The single bench of Justice M. Sundar has observed that the dealer cannot be compelled to opt for one of the two, i.e., refund or carry forward the ITC to the GST regime. It is, after all, an option given to the dealer. The provisional refund order issued by the department and the issuance of what is known as "Form-P" clearly defined the entitlement of the dealer.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 27
The Madras High Court has referred to the division bench the issue of the power of the high court under Article 226 to condone the delay beyond the maximum time limit stipulated under the GST Act.
The single bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose has observed that there were two contradictory views expressed by two judges of the Madras High Court.
Madras High Court Dismisses Plea By AR Rahman, GV Prakash and Santhosh Narayan Challenging GST Department’s Order Claiming Service Tax
Case Title: M/s. Amirta International Institute of Hotel Management v. The Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 41
The Madras High Court has recently dismissed the pleas filed by music composers AR Rahman, GV Prakash and Santhosh Narayan challenging the proceedings initiated by the Commissioner of the GST Department levying service tax on transfer of copyright in musical work for the period between 2013 and 2017.
Case Title: Tvl Metal Trade Incorporation Versus The Special Secretary
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 51
The Madras High Court has held that the State Authority cannot prosecute the petitioner once again as the Central Authority has already initiated action against the petitioner in respect of the very same subject matter.
Case Title: Deepa Traders Versus Principal Chief Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
The Madras High Court has held that errors committed are inadvertent and, the rectification would, in fact, enable proper reporting of the turnover and input tax credit (ITC) to enable claims to be made in an appropriate fashion by the assessees.
Kerala High Court
Case Title: Sasi Pathirakunnath Versus Assistant State Tax Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw(Ker) 21
The Kerala High Court has held that the presence of gold in your pocket without the appropriate documentation raises suspicions of tax evasion.
The bench of Justice Gopinath P. has observed that there is no satisfactory explanation for the fact that there was a discrepancy in the number of documents produced by the petitioner in the evening before the department and the quantity of gold actually recovered from the petitioner.
Case Title: Pappachan Chakkiath versus Assistant Commissioner & Ors.
The Kerala High Court has ruled that when the time limit for issuing an order under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act stands extended by a notification, the time limit for issuance of show cause notice under Section 73(2) would also stand extended.
Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/s Wipro India Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax
The Karnataka High Court has held that the circular regarding the mismatch of input tax credit (ITC) is applicable for 2019–20 in the case of identical errors.
No GST Applicable On Supply Of Vouchers: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/s Premier Sales Promotion Pvt Ltd versus Union of India & Ors.
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that vouchers do not fall under the category of goods and services and therefore, the issue and supply of vouchers would not attract GST.
Charger Sold Along With Mobile Phone Can’t Be Differently Taxed: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: The State of Karnataka Versus The Index Technologies India Ltd.
The Karnataka High Court has held that the charger, which is sold along with the mobile phone in one set, is taxable at the rate of 5%.
The Karnataka High Court has held that only the Central Government can make provision for prohibiting, restricting, or regulating the import or export of goods or services, or technology and not the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT).
Case Title: M/S Tonbo Imaging India Pvt Ltd Versus Union Of India
The Karnataka High Court has an amendment to Rule 89(4) (C) of the CGST Rules by Notification 16/2020-CT dated 23.03.2020 is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, unfair, unjust, and ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act and Section 54 of the CGST Act.
Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has held that Sales tax or VAT dues payable cannot be claimed as priority over dues of the secured creditor.
The division bench of Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Bhargav D. Karia has observed that the charge in respect of the property in question created for sales tax dues is of no avail and has no efficacy in law.
Case Title: Shree Ganesh Molasses Trading Company Versus Superintendent
The Gujarat High Court has held that the reversal of input tax credit (ITC) at midnight during search and seizure operations can't be treated as a voluntary payment.
The division bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Sandeep S. Bhatt has directed the department to reverse the ITC to the tune of Rs. 37,68,300 along with 6% interest.
Allahabad High Court
Allahabad High Court Stays Rs.1,081 Crores GST Demand Against Paytm
Case Title: One 97 Communications Limited Versus UOI
The Allahabad High Court has stayed the Goods and Service Tax (GST) demand of Rs. 1,081 crores against Paytm.
"The amount of tax due on the transaction has already been paid, and the only dispute is whether it is to be treated as an intra-state sale or an inter-state sale; recovery of the demand raised shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing," the division bench headed by Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice J.J. Munir said while listing the matter for hearing on April 27, 2022.
Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To Accused On The Payment Of GST Evasion Amount
Case Title: Vikas Bajoria Versus Union Of India
The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to the accused as he has already paid the amount of alleged GST evasion.
The single bench of Justice Mahendra Kumar Goyal has released the accused on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Taxpayer Cannot Be Compelled To Pay Tax On The Services Rendered By It Twice: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: M/s. Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Versus UOI
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the taxpayer cannot be compelled to pay tax on the services rendered twice.
The division bench of Justice Pankaj Mittal and Justice Subha Mehta ruled that the petitioner's supply of manpower to a company in Rajasthan is either an inter-state transaction subject to CGST+RGST or an intra-state transaction subject to IGST. The petitioner has deposited 18% of the IGST, and the respondents or department has recovered 35% of the CGST and RGST by attaching the petitioner's accounts.
Online Gaming Not Betting/Gambling; Rajasthan High Court Grants Interim Relief to Myteam 11
Case Title: Myteam11 Fantasy Sports Private Limited versus Union of India
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the issue regarding the nature of gaming services provided online is no longer res-integra, adding that such gaming services have been held to be games of skill and not games in nature of betting or gambling.
Orissa High Court
Case Title: Vedanta Limited, Jharsuguda Versus Union of India
The Orissa High Court has held that Vedanta has claimed the refund of the unutilized input tax credit on account of zero-rated supplies by clubbing up all the transactions relating to three units. There is no scope to insist on consideration of a supplementary refund application based on a fresh calculation made by taking individual unit-wise transactions into account.
Mosquito Repellent ‘Good Knight’ Is An Insecticide, 4% VAT Applicable: Orissa High Court
Case Title: State of Odisha Versus M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd.
The Orissa High Court has held that the mosquito repellent "Good Knight" sold by Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. is an insecticide.
Kinley Water Falls Within Water, Not Aerated Or Mineral Water, Comes Within Tax Free List: Orissa High Court
Case Title: State of Odisha Versus M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola
The Orissa High Court held that the sale of packaged drinking water under the brand name Kinley Water falls within the expression "water but not aerated or mineral water sold in bottles or sealed containers," which is covered under Entry No.39 of the Tax-Free List.
Chokad Is Not An Industrial Input: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Imposing 4% VAT
Case Title: M/s. Kamadhenu Cattle & Poultry Feed Unit versus The State of Odisha
The Orissa High Court has quashed the order imposing a 4% value-added tax (VAT) on the wheat bran (chokad) as it is not an industrial input.
Case Title: M/s. Galaxy Bar and Restaurant, Nayagarh Versus State of Odisha and others
The Orissa High Court has held that the license application should not be rejected only because a GST return has not been filed yet, since it is unrealistic to expect that to happen without the actual commencement of its business.
Andhra Pradesh High Court
GST Dept. Can’t Retain Disputed Amount Paid Due To Inadvertent Error: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Varshan Enterprises Versus Office of GST Council
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the GST department cannot retain the disputed amount that is paid to them due to an inadvertent error.
The division bench of Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu has observed that the amounts that were paid by the assessee or petitioner who furnished the incorrect details cannot be taken as a tax due from the department or respondents, legally. The department cannot contend that the claim, if any, of the petitioner is barred by limitation.
Since Investigation By DGGI Started Prior To Filing Of Application, AAR Order Is Invalid : Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/s Master Minds versus AAAR (GST)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AP) 6
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that the term ‘any proceedings’ referred to in the proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act/ Andhra Pradesh GST Act (APGST Act), includes within its ambit the investigation initiated against the applicant under the said Act.
Telangana High Court
Subsumption Of Service Tax Will Not Absolve Liability To Pay GST If Service Tax Was Agreed To Be Paid In Agreement : Telangana High Court
Case Title: Smt K. Himabindu v. TSRTC
In a Writ Petition, the Telangana High Court ordered that the Petitioner is liable to pay the GST on the license fee in place of service tax as the Petitioner was paying service tax separately under the terms of Deed of License.
Case Title: M/s. Musaddilal Gems and Jewels (India) Private Limited Versus UOI
The Telangana High Court has set aside the search and seizure of cash and jewellery by ED as it was done without recording the "reasons to believe."
Tripura High Court
Case Title: M/s Maharaja Gas Agency versus State of Tripura & Ors.
The Tripura High Court has ruled that the State of Tripura has no jurisdiction to levy VAT under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (TVAT), on transport or supply of LPG cylinders to Tripura under the work orders executed outside the State. The bench of Acting Chief Justice T. Amarnath Goud and Justice Arindam Lodh held that that the situs of the sale would be the place where the contracts were executed.
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court
Case Title: Godrej Consumer Products Limited Versus Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 4
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court have held that units located in Jammu and Kashmir are entitled to central excise duty exemption prior to July 1, 2017, and are therefore liable to pay GST.
The division bench of Justice Tashi Rabsdan and Justice Mohan Lal has observed that in terms of the Central Excise regime, as it existed prior to July 1, 2017, the units located in Jammu & Kashmir and other states were eligible to avail exemption from payment of Central Excise duty in terms of area-based exemption notifications. While exemption was available to the units located in Jammu and Kashmir, who were required to pay Central Excise Duty and avail exemption by way of refund of the cash component of duty paid, under the GST regime there was no exemption, and the existing units availing exemption from payment of Central Excise Duty prior to July 1, 201,7 are required to pay CGST and SGST/IGST like a normal unit. Thus, no exemption is available to the units by way of either an ab initio exemption or a refund.
Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: M/s Om Prakash Kashyap Versus UOI
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the benefit under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS scheme), cannot be denied by the designated committee for the reason that the department has decided to file an appeal against the order.
Jharkhand High Court Allows Migration Of The TDS Amount Under GST
Case Title: M/s Subhash Singh Choudhary Versus The State of Jharkhand
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the unadjusted TDS amount has to be treated as an input tax credit amount and is required to be carried forward in the next succeeding months.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that the unadjusted TDS amount would have been otherwise refundable to the petitioners if it were not allowed to be carried forward as excess input tax credit in the statutory format of a quarterly return (Form JVAT 200).
Case Title: M/s Ambey Mining Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of State Tax
The Jharkhand High Court has stayed the show-cause notices issued by two different authorities in respect of the same subject matter as being outside its jurisdiction.
Patna High Court
The Patna High Court has held that the GST registration was canceled without granting him the opportunity of a personal hearing.
The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Partha Sarthy has quashed the GST cancellation order and held that the authority ought to have at least referred to the contents of the show cause and the response thereto, which was not done. Not only is the order non-speaking, but it is also cryptic in nature, and the reason for cancellation is not decipherable.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
VAT Act, Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Dept. To Refund Pre-Deposit With 6% Interest
Case Title: Mount Everest Breweries Ltd. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the state/commercial tax department to refund the pre-deposit amount paid during the appeal with 6% interest to the assessee.
The division bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Prakash Chandra Gupta has observed that even though there is no provision for payment of interest on the refund of amounts so collected under the VAT Act, the petitioner would be eligible for 6% interest per annum w.e.f. April 17, 2017, until the date of refund.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: M/s Harsh Polyfabric Versus UOI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 18
The Calcutta High Court has held that a writ court cannot answer the classification of products under the Customs Tariff Act as it requires technical analysis.
GST Dept. Empowered To Detain Vehicle And Seize The Goods: Calcutta High Court Upholds Penalty
Case Title: Ashok and Sons (HUF) Vs. Joint Commissioner
The Calcutta High Court has held that the GST department was lawfully permitted to impose a penalty under Section 129 as well as the SGST as the goods were found to be detained in the territory of the state.
The bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri has observed that Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, empowers the statutory authority to detain the vehicle and seize the goods. The goods shall be released only upon payment of a penalty equal to 200% of the tax payable on the goods.
Case Title: Mega Flex Plastics Ltd. & Anr. Versus The Union of India
The Calcutta High Court, while upholding the ruling of the Orissa Appellate Authority, held that the classification of polypropylene bags cannot be changed just to avail a lower tariff rate.
The single Justice Md. Nizamuddin has observed that the polypropylene bags manufactured by the petitioner are made from plastic granules and cannot be treated as textile articles.
Case Title: Asian Switchgear Private Limited Versus State Tax Officer
The Calcutta High Court upheld the penalty and stated that there was no requirement in law to verify the reason for transporting goods in a vehicle without a proper e-way bill.
Case Title: Sandip Kumar Singhal Versus Deputy Commissioner, Revenue, Bureau of Investigation North Bengal Headquarter & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court has directed the refund of the penalty and held that the department was vacillating between Sections 67 and 68 of the GST Act, depending on whether the goods are in transit or in the godown.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title: M/s. Punjab Wool Syndicate Versus The State of Punjab and another
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that non-appearance before the Information Collection Centre (ICC) cannot be made a ground to initiate penalty proceedings if no attempt to evade tax is made.
The division bench of Justice Ritu Bahari and Justice Manisha Batra has observed that the driver had produced the documents at I.C.C. and subsequently, at the time of checking, he showed all the invoices. There was no attempt to evade tax. Hence, the VAT appeal was allowed, and no case for the imposition of a penalty is made out under Section 51(7)(c) of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005.
Case Title: Vijay Garg Versus the State of Haryana and another
The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to the person accused of forging bills worth Rs. 367 crores and evading GST payments worth Rs. 26 crores.
Gauhati High Court
Case Title: Chyawan Prakash Meena Versus UOI
The Gauhati High Court has directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) to expeditiously process the request for a refund of income tax deducted from the salary of the DIG (Ops) of the Border Security Force, who is a member of the scheduled tribe.
CESTAT
Case Title: R D Contractor & Company Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Anand
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the service tax is not payable on the construction services provided to the Gujarat State Police Housing Corporation for the construction of a residential complex for the police staff.
Road Construction Services Are Excluded From The Taxable Service: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand
Case Title: Apollo Construction Projects Pvt Ltd. Versus C.S.T.-Service Tax – Ahmedabad
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has quashed the demand for service tax and held that the service provided for road construction is excluded from the taxable service, namely "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service."
When The Test Reports Are On Record, No Need To Go To The Websites And Wikipedia: CESTAT
Case Title: Pradipkumar P. Patel Versus C.C.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that when the test reports are available on record, there is no need to go to the website or Wikipedia.
No Excise Duty Payable On Manual Segregation Of Scrap: CESTAT
Case Title: The Commissioner, Central Excise & CGST, Alwar Versus M/s R.P. Industries
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that excise duty is not levied on manual segregation of scrap.
CESTAT Allows Service Tax Refund To Developer Of Residential Flats On Cancellation Of Booking
Case Title: M/s Ratnawat Infra Construction Company Versus Commissioner, Central Excise & CGST-Jaipur I
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the service tax refund to the developer of residential flats on cancellation of the booking.
Authorised Dealer Not Liable To Pay Service Tax On Incentives Out Of Dealership Agreement: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Veer Prabhu Marketing Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the authorized dealer was not liable to pay service tax on various incentives that it received from Tata as per the dealership agreement.
Case Title: M/s Holy Land Marketing Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the Deputy Commissioner had the power to reassess the goods under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, after the goods had been cleared for home consumption.
Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied On Input Services Wholly Consumed Within SEZ: CESTAT
Case Title: Vishay Semiconductor India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service tax refunds cannot be denied on input services that are wholly consumed within the SEZ.
Haldiram Not Liable To Pay Service Tax On Take-Away Of Food Items: CESTAT
Case Title: Haldiram Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, GST Delhi East Commissionerate
The Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that no service tax can be levied on the activity of takeaway food items.
CESTAT Allows Cenvat Credit To Delhi Metro Rail Corporation On Consulting Engineer’s Services
Case Title: Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. versus Principal Commissioner, Service Tax, Delhi-I
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has granted Delhi Metro Rail Corporation a cenvat credit for consulting engineer services.
No Excise Duty Payable On Empty Barrels Used Only For Packing Material: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Cairn India Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that no excise duty is payable on empty barrels used only for packing material.
Case Title: M/s. Tamil Nadu Cricket Association versus Commissioner of Service Tax
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that the Chepauk Stadium provided by the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association for conduct of the Indian Premier League (IPL) matches, does not attract service tax. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue Department’s contention that the same was in the nature of infrastructural support service provided to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), which fell within the definition of ‘Support Services of Business or Commerce’ under Section 65(104c) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Customs Broker Is Not Liable For Undervaluation Of Exported Goods: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Sri Velavan Logistics Services Private Limited Versus The Commissioner of Customs
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that customs brokers cannot be held liable for the undervaluation of exported goods.
The bench of P. Dinesha (a judicial member) has observed that the valuation of any goods could never be the domain of a customs broker as it depends upon the contract between the exporter and the importer, in which the customs broker has no say.
Case Title: Chemical and Petrochemicals Manufactures Association (CPMA) versus Union of India & Ors.
The New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has reiterated that the decision taken by the Central Government to not impose an anti-dumping duty under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, is quasi-judicial in nature and not legislative, and thus, the requirement of a reasoned order must be compiled with.
Once The Flat Buyer Cancels The Booking Builder Not Liable To Pay Service Tax: CESTAT
Case Title: Credence Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that once the buyer cancelled the booking and the consideration for service was returned, the service contract got terminated, and once it is established that no service is provided, then refund of tax for such service becomes admissible.
Case Title: Drishty Communication Private Limited Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service tax is not payable on intermediaries in the sale of space or time for media agencies on a commission basis.
Responsibility Of Assessee To Know The Eligibility Before Making Export Benefits Claim: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Cipra Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Customs
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the appellant made a wrong claim of export benefit under MEIS, having been misadvised by the Customs House Agent (CHA).
Clinical Establishments Providing Health Care Services Are Exempted From Service Tax: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Maharaja Agrasen Hospital Charitable Trust Versus
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has observed that clinical establishments providing health care services are exempt from service tax.
Notice Under Customs Act Can Be Issued Only After The Assessment Is Modified On Appeal: CESTAT
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that once an assessment is made, it stands unless it is reviewed under Section 28 of the Customs Act or modified in an appeal.
The two-member bench headed by Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member)has observed that any assessment can be modified in two ways: first, through an appeal, and second, through a process of review under Section 28.
Gold Balas Are Gold Ornaments Having Definite Shape To Be Worn By The Local People: CESTAT
Case Title: Sailendra Narayan Panda Versus Pr. Commissioner of CGST & CX, Bhubaneswar
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has released the gold balas from custody and held that gold balas are gold ornaments having a definite shape to be worn by the local people.
The bench of P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) has observed that the Gold Control Act of 1968 has already been repealed since 1990. Under the new fiscal policy, the possession of gold is not an offense.
Onus is On The Customs Department To Prove That The Goods are Smuggled: CESTAT
Case Title: Dharmesh B. Bhavsar Versus Principal Commissioner, Customs
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the onus is on the Customs Department to lead evidence in support of an allegation as to the smuggled nature of goods.
The bench of Anil Choudhary (a judicial member) has directed the department to release the goods within a period of 15 days. The appellant shall not be liable for payment of godown rent, detention charges, or demurrage.
Case Title: Black Box Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Ahmedabad-iii
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the “activation charges” of equipment/ software features are covered under the activity of sales of goods and not covered under the provisions of “Service”.
Excise Duty Not Payable On Test Production: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Tribhuvan Metal Industries Versus Commissioner of Central Excise
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that excise duty is not payable on test production.
The bench of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) has observed that the appellant/assessee has done only test production prior to November 11, 2010, and they have been doing mainly trading of finished goods as the factory was not fully set up at the testing stage.
No Case Is Made Out By Customs For Confiscation Of Goods Meant For Export: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Medista Overseas Versus Commissioner, Central Excise & Central Goods and Service Tax
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a No Objection Certificate (NOC) is not required from the Drug Controller in respect of an export consignment filed for the export of drugs to Liberia.
Case Title: Yusufkhan M Pathan Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara-ii
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has quashed the service tax demand against the international cricketers, Irfan Pathan and Yusuf Pathan.
The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (judicial member) and Raju (technical member) has observed that the apparel that the appellant had to wear was team clothing, which bears the brand names and marks of various sponsors. The appellants were not providing any service as independent individuals. It cannot be said that the appellants were rendering any services that could be classified as business support services.
Case Title: M/s Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Excise
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that once the duty has been paid in cash, earlier payments made through the Cenvat Account are liable to be re-credited to the Account and no objection that such re-credit was not on the basis of any eligible document can be adopted by the department.
The bench of P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) has observed that the suo motu credit of Cenvat reversed earlier involved only an account entry reversal and, in the process, no outflow of funds from the assessee, and accordingly, filing of a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is not required.
CESTAT Allows Interest On Refunded Amount Deposited During Investigation
Case Title: M/s Leading Point Powertronics Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner, Central Excise & CGST- Delhi South
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed interest on the amount refunded, which was deposited during the investigation.
CESTAT Allows Interest On Refunded Amount Deposited During Investigation
Case Title: M/s Leading Point Powertronics Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner, Central Excise & CGST- Delhi South
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed interest on the amount refunded, which was deposited during the investigation.
Cenvat Credit Allowable On The Service Of Repair & Maintenance During Warranty Period: CESTAT
Case Title: C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot Versus Falcon Pumps Private Limited
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that cenvat credit is allowable on the service of repair and maintenance during the warranty period.
Case Title: M/s. Perundurai Common Effluent Treatment Plant Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service tax is not payable on the remuneration collected from the member units for the activity of treating effluent water.
CESTAT Allows Cenvat Credit On Service Tax Paid By Automotive Dealers
Case Title: ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the cenvat credit on service tax paid by automotive dealers.
Case Title: M/s. South India Shelters Private Limited Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that no liability for paying tax under ‘construction of complex service’ or ‘works contract’ would lie on the builder, developer, or promoter during the period prior to July 2010.
Imported Coal Does Not Attract Customs Education Cess And Higher Education Cess: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that imported coal would not attract the Customs Education Cess and the Higher Education Cess.
Case Title: M/s Donypolo Udyog Ltd Versus Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Indore
The Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that where the service provider has deployed his employees in the assessee's manufacturing premises for specific job works, it cannot be considered manpower supply services.
Case Title: M/s.Tansi Pump Unit Versus The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that excise duty is not payable on the scrap that has been sent to the job workers for the manufacture of intermediate products such as angles and channels.
Service Tax Not Payable On The Service Charges For Prepayment Of Loan Amount By The Customer: CESTAT
Case Title: Rajasthan Financial Corporation Versus Additional Commissioner
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service charges for pre-payment or foreclosure of loan amounts by the customer cannot be treated as taxable services and are not chargeable to service tax.
Both Sales Tax And Service Tax Cannot Be Made Applicable On The Same Transaction: CESTAT
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has observed that both sales tax and service tax cannot be made applicable on the same transaction.
Cooperative Banks Qualified As Cooperative Societies : CESTAT Allows Section 80P Deduction On Interest Received From Co-Operative Banks
Case Title: M/s.Laxmi Bachat Sharafi Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Versus ITO
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that cooperative banks qualified as cooperative societies and the interest received from cooperative banks by the assessee in the present case qualified for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: M/s Lupin Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs (Appeals), Guntur
The Hyderabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has rejected the refund claim of Krishi Kalyan Cess (KKC) worth rs. 5 lakhs paid on services received for manufacturing of goods.
Mere NBFC Registration Not Enough Under Provision Of Service Tax For Levy: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Qualcomm India Pvt ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad-IV
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that mere registration as an NBFC is not enough under the provision of service tax to levy.
CESTAT Allows Cenvat Credit Of Service Tax Paid On Services Of Toilets Located In Port User Building
Case Title: M/s Jawaharlal Neharu Port Trust Versus Commissioner of Central Tax - Raigad
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the CENVAT credit of service tax paid on services of toilets located in port-user buildings.
Case Title: M/s Asrani Inns & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax Navi Mumbai
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the Cenvat Credit on Service Tax paid on architect services; telephone expenses, etc. for construction of hotel are input services.
Case Title: M/s Harit Polytech Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Central Excise & CGST- Jaipur I
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has observed that central excise duty is not payable on capital subsidies received from the state government in the form of sales tax challan 37b.
Case Title: M/s Hariwansh Packing Products Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Nagpur-I
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the amount deposited in the Personal Ledger Account (PLA) until such time as it is not debited towards duties is the property of the appellant.
AAAR
Vouchers Are Neither Goods Nor Services, No ITC Available To Myntra: AAAR
Applicant’s Name: Myntra Designs Private Limited
The Karnataka Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) has held that input tax credit (ITC) is not available on the vouchers and subscription packages procured by Myntra from third-party vendors.
Permit Issued By Forest Dept. For Coal-Transit Taxable As "Public-Administrative-Services": AAAR
Appellant’s Name: Singareni Collieries Company Limited
The Telangana Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) has ruled that the permit issued by the forest department for coal transit is taxable as public administrative services.
18% GST Applicable On Services Of Project Management Consultancy Services: Maharashtra AAAR
Applicant’s Name: M/s. Worley Services India Pvt. Ltd.
The Maharashtra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) has ruled that project management consulting services are subject to 18% GST.
The two-member bench of D.K. Srinivas and Rajiv Kumar Mittal has upheld the AAR’s ruling and observed that services provided through their professionals are in the nature of professional and technical services as the services provided require technically qualified and trained professionals and staff. Thus, the services provided by the appellant will merit classification under SAC 998349 with the description "Other technical and scientific services."
Administering Of COVID-19 Vaccine By Hospitals Attracts 5% GST: AAAR
The Andhra Pradesh Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) has ruled that hospitals must pay 5% GST when administering the COVID-19 vaccine.
The two-member bench of Sanjay Pant and M. Girija Shankar has observed that the administration of the COVID-19 vaccine is not an exempt supply as it is not covered under the definition of "healthcare services." Further held, it is a composite supply wherein the principal supply is the "sale of vaccines" and the ancillary supply is the "service of administering vaccines."
AAR
Supply Of Ice Cream From The Outlets Cannot Be Considered As Supply Of “Restaurant Services”: AAR
Applicant’s Name: HRPL Restaurants P. Ltd.
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the supply of ice cream from the outlets cannot be considered as the supply of restaurant services.
Applicant’s Name: Raj Agro AIDS
The Punjab Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that the building and fabricating of a tipper body if the chassis is owned and supplied by the customer attracts 18% GST.
Applicant’s Name: Vimal Alloys Ltd.
The Punjab Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that the purchaser is not entitled to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the purchases made by it from the seller, who had discharged its tax liability.
Applicant’s Name: Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Limited
The Odisha Authority of Advance Ruling has held that GST under the reverse charge mechanism is applicable to services by way of taking residential premises on rent for use as its guest house.
5% GST Payable On RCM Basis On Purchase Of Tobacco Leaves/Bhukko From The Agriculturist: Gujarat AAR
Applicant’s Name: M/s. JCP Agro Process P Ltd.
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that 5% GST on reverse charge mechanisms (RCM) shall be applicable on the purchase of tobacco leaves/bhukko from the agriculturist.
28% GST Payable On Supply PVC Floor Mats For Cars: AAR
Applicant’s Name: Manishaben Vipulbhai Sorathiya
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that 28% GST is payable on the supply of PVC floor mats for cars.
The two-member bench of Amit Kumar Mishra and Milind Kavatkar has observed that the floor mats used for four-wheel motor vehicles (cars) supplied by the applicant are principally for use in motor vehicles.
Applicant’s Name: Marubeni India Private Limited
The Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the supply of goods to an overseas customer is treated neither as a supply of goods nor as a supply of services.
Applicant’s Name: PICO2FEMTO Semiconductor Services Private Limited
The Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that the transfer or sale of one of the independently running business divisions attracts 18% GST.
Supply Of The Aircraft Type Rating Training Is Exigible To GST: AAR
Applicant’s Name: CAE Flight Training (India) Private Limited
The Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that the supply of aircraft-type rating training is eligible for GST.
Salted, Flavoured Potato Chips, Chivda, Sev, Hing Bhujiya Attracts 12% GST: Gujarat AAR
Applicant’s Name: Prajapati Keval Dineshbhai
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has observed that 12% GST is applicable on salted and flavoring potato chips, chivda, sev, and hing bhujiya.
Applicant’s Name: Ridhi Enterprise
The Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that readily available food and beverages that are not prepared in the restaurant and sold over the counter are supplies of goods that are liable to GST and do not qualify as "restaurant services."
The two-member bench of Amit Kumar Mishra and Milind Kavatkar relied on the ruling of the Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling, Uttrakhand, pronounced in the case of M/s Kundan Mishthan, in which it was ruled that sales of sweets, namkeens, cold drinks, and other edible items from sweet shop counters will be treated as supplies of goods with applicable GST rates of the items being sold and input credit will be allowed on supplies.
Supply Of Sharpener Along With Pencils Is A Mixed Supply: Gujarat AAR
Applicant’s Name: Doms Industries Pvt. Ltd.
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the supply of sharpeners along with pencils is covered under the category of "mixed supply."
The two-member bench of Amit Kumar Mishra and Milind Kavatkar has observed that a mixed supply containing more than two supplies shall be treated as a supply of the particular supply that attracts the higher rate of tax in the mixed supply. The applicant is required to use the HSN code of the particular supply, which attracts a higher rate of tax among all the taxable supplies contained in a pack or box.
GST Exemption On Hiring Of Goods Transportation Vehicle By GTA: Chhattisgarh AAR
Applicant’s Name: Prahallad Ray Rekhraj Agrawal Bazar Neora
The Chhattisgarh Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that GST is not payable on the hiring of goods transportation vehicles by the Goods Transportation Agency (GTA).
The two-member bench of Sonal K. Mishra and Rajesh Kumar Singh has observed that the service by way of giving on hire a means of transportation of goods to the applicant GTA is exigible for the nil rate of GST as stipulated under Notification number 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017. When no tax is payable, the question of taking any input tax credit does not arise.
Applicant’s Name: Tutor Comp Info Tech Private Limited
The Kerala Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that training and coaching services do not come under the definition of "educational institution" to claim GST exemption.
The two-member bench of S.L. Sreeparvathy and Abraham Renn S has observed that institutions providing services by way of education as a part of the curriculum for obtaining a qualification recognised by any law for the time being in force and those engaged in providing education as a part of an approved vocational education course are covered by the definition of "educational institution."
No GST Payable On Afforestation Carried Out By Charitable Organisation: Gujarat AAR
Applicant’s Name: M/s. Vikas Centre For Development
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that the afforestation carried out by the charitable organisation is exempt from GST.
The two-member bench of Amit Kumar Mishra and Milind Kavatkar observed that the activities of mangrove plantations are covered under charitable activity. The applicant is registered under Section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as a charitable trust, and thus the service of planting mangroves by the applicant is eligible for exemption from the payment of GST.
Medical Monitoring Services To Senior Citizens At Door Step Attract 18% GST: West Bengal AAR
Applicant’s Name: Snehador Social & Health Care Support LLP
The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that services of regular medical monitoring, along with other logistical support, provided by the applicant to senior citizens at their doorsteps, attract 18% GST.
Supply Of Services For Right To Use Car Parking Space Attracts 18% GST: West Bengal AAR
Applicant’s Name: Eden Real Estates Private Limited
The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that the supply of services for the right-to-use car parking spaces attracts 18% GST.
The two-member bench of Brajesh Kumar Singh and Joyjit Banik has observed that the supply of services for the right to use a car parking space is a separate supply and not to be construed as a composite supply of construction of residential apartment services.
Applicant’s Name: Purple Distributors Pvt. Ltd.
The West Bengal Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the conversion of short weld rails (SWR) to long weld rails (LWR) by flash butt welding on the railway tracks along with the supply of labour services shall be treated as composite supplies.
Applicant’s Name: Triveni Engicons Private Limited
The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the contract for the construction of new railway siding is covered under the definition of a "works contract" and attracts 12% GST.
Treated Water Obtained From CETP Attracts 18% GST: Gujarat AAR
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has observed that treated water obtained from the Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP) attracts 18% GST.
The two-member bench of Amit Kumar Mishra and Milind Kavatkar has observed that the applicant is also a common effluent treatment plant engaged in collecting, conveying, treating, and disposing of effluents from its member dyeing and bleaching units and obtaining water by the process of reverse osmosis. The treated water is not used for drinking purposes by the public at large but is supplied to industries for their use.
18% GST Payable On The Forest Permit Fee: Telangana AAR
Applicant: M/s Singareni Colleries Company Ltd.
The Telangana Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that 18% GST is payable on the forest permit fee.
The two-member bench of B.P. Naga Siva Kumari observed that the permit fees collected by the forest department are used by forest officials to monitor mining activity, assess the quantity and type of mineral being quarried, conduct surveys, and keep a constant eye on the movement of the produce, and are unrelated to social or farm forestry.
Applicant’s Name: Sree Subha Sales
The Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that a pure agent is not liable to pay GST on reimbursement of compensation amounts paid to farmers and landowners.
The two-judge bench of M.P. Ravi Prasad and Kiran Reddy T. has ruled that reimbursement of land compensation amounts paid to farmers and landowners during the course of work is subject to GST if the applicant does not qualify as a pure agent.
Works Contract Services Of Construction Of Railway Under Bridge Exigible To 18% GST: Karnataka AAR
Applicant’s Name: S K Swamy and Company
The Karnataka Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that Indian Railways' contract services for the construction of the railway under the bridge are subject to 18% GST.
GST ITC Available On Trading Of Meat Products, Packed Cold Cuts Spices, Masala Powder: Karnataka AAR
Applicant’s Name: Meat Mart Unit of the New Bangalore Ham Shop
The Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the GST Input Tax Credit (ITC) is available for the trading of meat products, packed cold cuts, spices, and masala powder.
The two-member bench of M.P. Ravi Prasad and Kiran Reddy T. has observed that input tax credit has to be availed of in terms of sections 16 and 17 of the CGST Act 2017 read with Rule 42 of the CGST Rules 2017.
5% GST Payable On Pre-Packaged And Labelled Jaggery: Karnataka AAR
Applicant’s Name: Prakash and Company
The Karnataka Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has held 5% GST on pre-packaged and labeled jaggery.
Setting-Up Naval Communication Network By Subcontractor For BSNL, Attracts 12% GST: Maharashtra AAAR
The Maharashtra Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) has ruled that 12% GST is applicable on setting up the Naval Communication Network as a subcontractor for the Indian Navy on behalf of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL).
5% GST Applicable On Value Of Part Of Gold Retained For Job Work: West Bengal AAR
Applicant’s Name: Aabhushan Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.
The West Bengal Advance Ruling Authority (AAR) has ruled that the value of 10 grams of gold is included in the value of job work services and is subject to 5% GST.
GST Exempted On Services Of Milling Of Food Grains Into Flour To Govt. Of West Bengal For PDS: AAR
Applicant’s Name: Somnath Flour Mills
The West Bengal Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that services by way of milling food grains into flour (atta) and supplying it to the Food & Supplies Department, Govt. of West Bengal, for distribution under the Public Distribution System, are eligible for GST exemption.
GST Exempted On Bouquet Made With Dry Parts Of Plants, Foliage, And Branches Of Plant: AAR
Applicant’s Name: Shopinshop Franchise Pvt. Ltd.
The West Bengal Authority of the Advance Ruling (AAR) has observed that bouquets made with dry parts of plants, such as foliage, flower buds, grasses, and branches of plants, are exempt from GST.
Selling Of Alcoholic Liquor For Human Consumption Is A “Non-Taxable Supply”: AAR
Applicant’s Name: Karnani FNB Specialities Ltd.
The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has observed that the activities of selling alcoholic liquor for human consumption by the applicant would be treated as a "non-taxable supply" and therefore fall under the category of "exempt supply" under the GST Act.
Supply Of Ready To Eat And Ready To Cook Food Products Attracts 18% GST: Karnataka AAR
Applicant’s Name: SATS Food Solutions India Private Limited
The Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling has ruled that 18% GST is applicable on the supply of ready-to-eat and ready-to-cook food products.
The two-member bench of M.P. Ravi Prasad and Kiran Reddy T. has observed that all kinds of food mixes, including instant food mixes, soft drink concentrates, Sharbat, the betel nut product known as "Supari," sterilized or pasteurized millstone, ready-to-eat packaged food, and milk containing edible nuts with sugar or other ingredients, attract 18% GST.
GST Payable On Additional Surcharge Collected From Open Access Consumer Under Electricity Act: AAR
Applicant’s Name: Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation Limited
The Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that the additional surcharge collected from open-access consumers as per Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is taxable under the GST Act.
The two-member bench of M.P. Ravi Prasad and Kiran Reddy T. has observed that Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation Limited cannot be considered either a "governmental authority" or a "local authority."
Direct Taxes
Supreme Court
Exemption Of Newspaper’s Income Utilised For Charity: Supreme Court Remands The Matter To AO
Case Title: PCIT Versus Servant of People Society
The Supreme Court has remanded the appeal in respect of the exemption of newspaper income used for charity.
Case Title: PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL v. ABHISAR BUILDWELL P. LTD
The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its judgment on whether in an assessment under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, besides the incriminating material found during search, such materials which the Assessing Officer has on hand and the third party records available can be relied on to assess total income, or whether the assessment has to confined only to the incriminating material seized during the search. The Court also discussed the issue whether there is no incriminating material seized during the search, then those assessments be reopened and reassessed under Section 153A.
Income Tax Act - For Block Assessment, Normals Procedure Not Applicable; Interest Can Be Levied Without Sec 158BC Notice : Supreme Court
Case Title: K.L. Swamy v. Commissioner of Income Tax And Anr.
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 54
The Supreme Court recently held that revenue was justified in levying interest under Section 158BFA(1) of the Income Tax Act for late filing of the return for the block period even in absence of any notice under Section 158BC of the Act and for the period prior to 01.06.1999.
A Bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar was considering a batch of petitions dealing with the same issue.
Non-Banking Finance & Leasing Companies Not Liable To Pay Interest Tax On Instalments Paid Under Hire Purchase Agreement : Supreme Court
Case Title: M/s. Muthoot Leasing And Finance Ltd. versus CIT
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 7
The Supreme Court has held that non-banking finance and leasing companies are not liable to pay tax on the interest component included in the hire-purchase instalment paid under the hire purchase agreement.
Income Tax Act | Writ Petition Can Be Entertained To Examine If Conditions To Issue Section 148 Notice Are Satisfied : Supreme Court
Case Title: Red Chilli International Sales Versus ITO
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 16
The Supreme Court recently set aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which dismissed a writ petition filed by an assessee against a notice issued under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act 1961 for reopening assessment.
The High Court had dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. Taking exception to the High Court's approach, the Supreme Court observed that writ petitions have been entertained to examine whether the conditions for the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act have been satisfied.
Non-Service Of Assessment Orders Inconsequential If Assesee Had Knowledge About Them Otherwise : Supreme Court
Case Title: Commercial Tax Officer Versus Neeraja Pipes Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 199
Attachment orders issued by the revenue for tax arrears will not be vitiated merely because the assessment orders were not served on the assessee, if the assessee had otherwise got knowledge about the assessment orders, held by the Supreme Court recently.
Case Title: Anil Minda and Others Versus Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 246
The Supreme Court has held that the date on which the Panchnama was last drawn is the starting point of the two-year limitation for completing the block assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act 1961.
Delhi High Court
Case Title: OYO Hotels and Homes Private Limited vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
The Delhi High Court has set aside the Revenue Department’s order withholding a refund of over Rs. 33 Crores due to OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt Ltd, while directing the department to reconsider OYO’s representations seeking disbursal of the refund amount, bearing in mind the provisions of Section 241A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Milestone Systems A/S vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 254
The Delhi High Court has set aside the Income Tax Department’s order rejecting the assessee’s application seeking a certificate for “NIL” rate of withholding tax under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Income Tax Demand On OYO For 1,140 Cr: Delhi High Court Directs CIT To Give Personal Hearing
Case Title: OYO Hotels And Homes Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT
The Delhi High Court has directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) to accord a personal hearing to OYO for the stay on the income tax demand of Rs. 1,140 crores.
Case Title: Sanjay Sudan vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the revenue department cannot adjust the withheld tax (TDS) which has not been deposited by the deductor (employer) in the Central Government Account, against the refund due and payable to the deductee/assessee.
Case Title: PC Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Fish Poultry and Egg Marketing Committee
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the income/ fee earned by an Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) for regulating the poultry market, would fall within the scope of Section 10(26AAB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and thus the same would be exempt from income tax.
Delhi High Court Stays Reassessment Order Based On Internal Audit Objection
Case Title: Kum Kum Kohli Versus ACIT
The Delhi High Court has stayed the reassessment order based on an internal audit objection.
The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shadher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the expression "any audit objection" was introduced only by the Finance Act, 2022, although with effect from April 1, 2012. Prior to the amendment, the expression obtained in Explanation 1(ii) appended to Section 148 referred to the "Comptroller and Auditor General of India."
Department Can’t Go Behind TRC Issued By The Other Tax Jurisdictions: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three Pte. Ltd. Versus ACIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 125
The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment and held that the department cannot go behind the Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) issued by the other tax jurisdiction.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the reason given for reopening the assessment, namely, to verify the nature and genuineness of the transactions of the assessee in the assessment year, was untenable in law as the return of income had been filed by the assessee within time with full particulars. The notice has been issued on borrowed satisfaction, which is impermissible in law.
Case Title: Blackstone Capital Partner Versus ACIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 92
The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment notice as the AO failed to apply his mind as to whether an investment in shares was a capital account transaction.
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax versus M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 95
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961, inserted by the Finance Act, 2014, which bars deduction of CSR expenses while computing income from business or profession, is prospective in nature.
The bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju remarked that deductibility of CSR expenses under Section 37(1), prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, cannot depend upon how the funds are spent by the recipient.
Case Title: Charu Chains & Jewels (P) Ltd. Versus ACIT
The Delhi High Court has held that the underlying information or material that formed the basis for triggering the assessment or reassessment proceedings was required to be furnished to the assessee.
The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has noted that the petitioner has indicated that it will file a further response once the information or material is provided, and even if the information or material is not provided, it will reserve its right to file a further response.
Bombay High Court
Case Title: Lok Developers versus Deputy Commissioner of Income tax
The Bombay High Court has set aside the proceedings initiated by the revenue authorities against the assessee for non-compliance of the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the notice was served on the secondary email id registered with the PAN database instead of the registered primary email id or the updated email id mentioned by the assessee in its last Return of Income.
Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Proceedings Against Jetair
Case Title: Jetair Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
The Bombay High Court has quashed the reassessment proceedings against Jetair Pvt Ltd, a group entity of Jet Airways (India) Ltd, and has set aside the notice issued by the revenue department under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 against Jetair, seeking to reopen the assessment for the relevant assessment year.
Case Title: Lakshdeep Investments & Finance Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
The Bombay High Court has quashed the reassessment order on the grounds that the only reason for issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act appeared to be that the Assessing Officer had come to a different opinion on the question of valuation than the one adopted by the petitioner.
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court has upheld the CIT’s order in deleting the addition made on account of interest expenditure as the assessee, Godrej & Boyce, had sufficient interest-free surplus funds to make the investment.
No Reason For AO To Believe Income Chargeable To Tax Escaped Assessment: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Late Bharat Jayantilal Patel Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
The Bombay High Court has held that the development agreement permitted construction on the land only as a licensee, which did not have the effect of transmitting possession in favor of the licensee as per Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
The division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Kamal Khata has observed that there was neither any tangible material nor any reason for the assessing officer to believe that "any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment,". The action of the assessing officer, therefore, would be without jurisdiction.
Absence Of Material: Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Proceedings
Case Title: Konark Life Spaces Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income -Tax
The Bombay High Court has quashed the reassessment proceedings as the issue of "large loans and advances" was not only raised during the scrutiny assessment but also responded to by the assessee.
The division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Kamal Khata has observed that between the date of the order of assessment, which is sought to be reopened, and the date of the formation of the opinion, nothing new happened. There is neither new information on hand nor reference made to any new material on record.
Case Title: Abbott India Ltd versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that the CBDT Circular, dated 01.08.2012, as per which the expenses incurred in granting freebies to medical practitioners is inadmissible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, since it is prohibited by law, would not be applicable to the assessment year 2008-09.
Case Title: CLSA India Private Limited versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
The Bombay High Court has reiterated that once the revenue department is aware about the amalgamation and had knowledge regarding the non-existence of the amalgamating entity, an assessment order passed against such amalgamating entity would be void and not merely a procedural defect.
Case Title: Deepak Marda Versus The Income Tax Officer
The Bombay High Court has held that the fact that a different director of the same company disclosed the income received in a different way cannot be used as justification to reopen the assessment.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation
The Bombay High Court has held that the assessee cannot claim the deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act in the absence of a certificate declaring the warehouse to be part of the port.
Case Title: Clear Media (India) Private Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
The Bombay High Court has quashed the Reassessment Order and held that between the date of the order of assessment sought to be reopened and the date of the formation of an opinion by the Assessing Officer, nothing new has happened. There was no new information received, nor was there any mention of new material on file.
Case Title: Footcandles Film Pvt Ltd. & Anr. versus Income Tax Officer – TDS & Ors.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that orders, instructions or directions issued by the CBDT under Section 119 or under the Explanation to Section 279 (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot put fetters on the power of income tax authorities under Section 279(2) to consider an application for compounding of offence, by prescribing a period of limitation.
The bench of Justices Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Valmiki SA Menezes, took note that Section 279 (2) of the Income Tax Act, which provides for compounding of certain offences, either before or after the institution of proceedings, does not provide any rule of limitation.
Case Title: PCIT Versus M/s Capstone Securities Analysis Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court ruled that the transfer of PAN is a result of the order transferring jurisdiction and that the PAN follows the jurisdiction rather than the other way around.
Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Order On Asian Paints In View Of Full Disclosure
Case Title: Asian Paints Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
The Bombay High Court has quashed the reassessment order as the assessee, Asian Paints, disclosed fully and truly all facts material and necessary for the assessment.
Reassessment Notice after 4 Years should have the Sanction Of PCIT: Bombay High Court
Case Title: MA Multi-Infra Development Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT
The Bombay High Court ruled that issuing a reassessment notice after four years is subject to the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT).
The division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Kamal Khata has ruled that the approval for the issuance of a notice under Section 148 ought not to have been obtained from the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax but from the authority specifically mentioned under Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: National Centre for the Performing Arts Versus Union of India
The Bombay High Court has held that failure to adjust interest paid by the National Centre for the Performing Arts (NCPA) was hyper- technical and should not come in the way of implementation of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 ( SVLDRS).
The division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Abhay Ahuja has observed that the object of the SVLDR Scheme should not be lost sight of, as the scheme has itself been formulated for the smooth settlement of disputes. The interpretation of the provisions should be to carry forward the object rather than to frustrate the it by giving rise to more litigation.
Madras High Court
Personal Hearing To Be Granted In All Matters Prior To Finalisation Of Assessment: Madras High Court
Case Title: SKS Builders and Promoters Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST)
The Madras High Court has held that personal hearings shall be granted in all matters prior to the finalization of assessments, except where the stand of the assessee is intended to be accepted by the department.
Case Title: Santhosh vs. The Commercial Tax Officer & Anr.
The Madras High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against the guarantor of the assessee for failing to pay the tax dues of the latter to the Commercial Tax Department.
The Commercial Tax Officer (CTO) filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate against the assessee as well as the petitioner, who stood as a guarantor with respect to the tax arrears of the business done by the assessee.
Karnataka High Court
Payroll Services By IBM Philippines Not FTS, TDS Not Liable To Be Deducted: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Director of Income Tax Versus IBM India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 65
The Karnataka High Court, while dismissing the appeal of the department, held that payroll services by IBM Philippines are not fees for technical services (FTS), and the TDS is not liable to be deducted.
The division bench of Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar and Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda has observed that the work has been outsourced to IBM Philippines. IBM Philippines was carrying out the work described in the agreement between IBM India and P&G India. Hence, IBM Philippines was not rendering any technical service, and therefore, the income in the hands of IBM Philippines is a business income.
Case Title: M/s S P Metals Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
The Karnataka High Court has permitted the Superintendent of Central Tax to pass suitable orders for revocation of the cancellation of the GST registration, if the petitioner/assessee files returns.
The single bench of Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad has observed that the cancellation of GST registration was without due opportunity and was arbitrary.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation & Transfer Pricing) versus M/s. The Timken Company
The Calcutta High Court has reiterated that consideration for advisory services cannot be treated as Fees for Included Services under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The Court thus upheld the ITAT’s order setting aside the additions made to the foreign assessee Company’s income for the compensation received by it for rendering advisory services to its Indian subsidiary.
Case Title: PCIT Versus Britannia Industries Ltd.
The Calcutta High Court has held that unless and until the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any perversity or ignores any vital fact in an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, the Court is not expected to interfere with the order.
Section 50C Cannot Be Applied On Compulsory Acquisition Of A Capital Asset: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: PCIT Versus Durgapur Projects Ltd.
The Calcutta High Court has held that in cases of compulsory acquisition of a capital asset (land or building, or both), the provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act cannot be applied as the question of payment of stamp duty for effecting the transfer does not arise.
AO Issued Income Tax Assessment Notice To Non-Existent Company: Calcutta High Court Imposes Cost
Case Title: Orbit Projects Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer
The Calcutta High Court has imposed a fine of Rs. 20,000 on the assessing officer for issuing the income tax assessment notice to the non-existent company.
Calcutta High Court Quashes Income Tax Notices Issued In The Name Of Non-Existing Company
Case Title: S. K. Finserve Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
The Calcutta High Court has quashed the income tax notice issued in the name of a non-existing company, in spite of the department having notice and knowledge of the non-existence of the company.
AO Has Reduced The Procedure To An Empty Formality, To Be Deprecated: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court had quashed the Assessment Order and held that the assessing officer has reduced the procedure to an empty formality, which has to be deprecated.
Gujarat High Court
Sale Consideration Out Of Transfer Of Capital Asset Is Liable To Capital Gain: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Deepak Nitrate Versus DCIT
The Gujarat High Court has held that the detachable warrant has an existence of its own along with the debenture purchased by the assessee for a sum of Rs. 50. The realization would be a sale consideration arising out of the transfer of a capital asset and is subject to capital gain.
Case Title: Kavita Krushna Kumar v. Union of India
The Gujarat High Court recently quashed a reassessment order and final notice of assessment issued against to an assessee after she failed to produce the relevant documents, particularly Form-F prescribed under Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 amid Covid-19 lockdown.
The division bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt allowed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that not giving proper opportunity to the petitioner as per the law is a clear violation of principle of natural justice.
Case Title: PCIT Versus M/s. Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Ltd.
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the tribunal’s order, by which it was held that the assessee was entitled to and eligible for deduction on export benefits on account of the refund of excise duty under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act.
Once Assessee Shows Genuineness Of Transactions, No Additions Can Be Made: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: PCIT Versus M/s.Neotech Education Foundation
The Gujarat High Court has held that the assessee has discharged the primary onus to prove the creditworthiness of the transaction.
Reopening The Assessment Based On Change Of Opinion, Not Valid: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Shahlon Silk Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT
The Gujarat High Court has held that the Assessing Officer cannot have any jurisdiction to issue the notice for reopening the assessment when the assessment is sought to be reopened beyond a period of four years.
The division bench of Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Bhargav D. Karia has observed that there was a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2013-2014, more particularly when the issues raised in the reopening assessment were already considered during the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act, 1961.
Failure Of Taxpayer To Disclose Fully: Gujarat High Court Refuses To Quash Reassessment
Case Title: Omni Lens Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT
The Gujarat High Court has refused to quash the reassessment because the taxpayer has not truly and fully disclosed the material.
The division bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri observed that if the petitioner or assessee was not remedial and has now questioned the issuance of a notice, he is required by law to cooperate with the authority in the adjudication process. When the authority ultimately passes any adverse order, the entire remedy created under the special statute is very much available to the petitioner.
Practice Of Not Responding To Request Of Adjournment, To Take Matter Up At Anytime, When AO Deems Fit Is Not Endorsable: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Shree Siddhi Foods Versus ACIT
The Gujarat High Court has held that the practice of not responding to the request for adjournment and thereafter taking the matter up at any time when the Assessing Officer deems it appropriate was not endorsable.
Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: Micro Marbles Private Limited Versus Office of the Income Tax Officer
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the material referred to in the "reasons to believe" was not supplied to the assessee, and the entire proceedings for the reopening of the assessment and leading to the consequential assessment stand vitiated in law.
Orissa High Court
Case Title: PCIT (Central) versus Narayan Kumar Khaitan
The Orissa High Court has deprecated the Income Tax Authority who, despite being informed that the assessee was in judicial custody, failed to serve a notice upon him through the Superintendent of the concerned jail, in the proceedings initiated against the assessee under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Orissa High Court Allows Deduction To The Co-operative Society Involved In The Business Of Banking
Case Title: Cuttack Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
The Orissa High Court has granted the deduction to the Co-operative Society engaged in the banking business.
The division bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice M. S. Raman has observed that the tribunal was justified in making further classification while interpreting Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act by treating it to be different from the primary agriculture rural development bank/co-operative societies.
Invalid Assumption Of Jurisdiction: Orissa High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Against Vedanta
Case Title: Vedanta Resources Ltd. Versus ACIT
The Orissa High Court has quashed the reassessment notice issued against Vedanta Resources Ltd. (VRL) on the grounds of an invalid assumption of jurisdiction.
The division bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice M.S. Raman observed that under Section 127(2)(a), no transfer of jurisdiction can take place without affording the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter.
Case Title: M/s. Unideep Food Processing (P) Ltd. Versus ITAT
The Orissa High Court has sustained the addition of unsecured loans under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Versus M/s. Serajuddin & Co. Kolkata
The Orissa High Court has held that the requirement of prior approval of the superior officer before an order of assessment or reassessment is passed pursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of Section 153D of the Income Tax Act.
Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Rajeev Bansal Versus Union Of India
The Allahabad High Court ruled that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) cannot be used to conduct the reassessment proceedings beyond March 30, 2021. The time limit outlined in Section 149(1)(b) (as amended beginning April 1, 2021) cannot be extended by the department after March 30, 2020.
Case Title: M/s Radha Fragrance versus Union of India & Ors.
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that under the garb of the protection given under Rule 138 of CGST Rules, 2017, dispensing the requirement of an E-Way bill for the movement of goods valued below Rs.50,000, a dealer who is a manufacturer, cannot be allowed to send his goods to different consignees by undervaluing the same, and without the Taxing Authorities proceeding to take action against him under Section 129 of the CGST Act.
Taxing Authorities Can't Stop Assessee From Claiming Statutory Right: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Yash Kothari Public Charitable Trust Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 64
The Allahabad High Court has held that the taxing authorities cannot, in the garb of technicality, stop any assessee from claiming his statutory right, as provided under the Income Tax Act.
The bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal has observed that, due to the mistake of the department or a technical glitch in the software, when an appeal of an assessee is not reflected on the portal, the department cannot deny the appeal filed offline on technical grounds.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
S. 124 of Finance Act, 2019 Not Violative of Article 14: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title: M/s Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd versus Union of India & Anr.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 124(2) and 130(2) of the Finance Act, 2019, which deal with the ‘Vivad se Vishwas Scheme’ (VSV Scheme), dismissing the contention that the said provisions were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India since they deny refund to the assessee/ declarant even if the amount already deposited by it exceeds the amount payable under the Scheme.
Case Title: Daulat Ram Khan Versus State of Haryana
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that if Dharamshala is provided at a nominal rent for conducting marriages, it will not amount to a commercial purpose.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: PCIT Versus M/s Great Galleon Ventures Ltd.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court's Indore Bench dismissed the department's appeal, ruling that no incriminating documents were discovered during the search.
ITAT
ITAT Sustains Disallowance As Cash Payment Exceeds Rs. 20,000 To Single Party In Single Day
Case Title: Shri Kalimuthu Harichandran Versus ACIT
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has sustained the disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act as a cash payment exceeds INR 20,000 to a single party in a single day.
Case Title: PDR Solutions FZC versus DCIT
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that a domain name registrar does not have any right to the domain name, which is registered by it merely as a facilitator. Thus, the income received by it from domain name registration is not taxable as a “Royalty”, the ITAT ruled.
When AO Has Taken One Of The Possible Views The PCIT Is Prohibited From Adopting Different View: ITAT
Case Title: Prerak Goel Versus PCIT
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), while quashing the revision order, held that when the Assessing Officer (AO) has taken one of several possible views, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) is prohibited from adopting a different view.
The two-member bench of Aby V. Varkey (Judicial Member) and B.R. Baskaran (Accountant Member) relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co., Ltd. v. CIT, in which it was ruled that if the AO has taken one of the possible views, then the assessment order cannot be considered to be prejudicial to the interests of revenue merely for the reason that the PCIT has a different view on the very same matter.
TDS Not Applicable To Salary/Commission Paid To Partners: ITAT
Case Title: ACIT Versus Dhar Construction Company
The Gauhati Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the TDS is not applicable to salary or commission paid to partners.
Case Title: M/s Sagitarius Securities Pvt. Ltd. Versus I.T.O.
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that it is impossible for a company to get its accounts audited on 31st March and present the same for approval in the Annual General Meeting on March 31st.
Company’s Income Cannot Be Assessed Under ‘Salary’: ITAT
Case Title: Ducere Technologies Private Limited Versus DCIT
The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that since the assessee is a company, its income cannot be assessed under the heading "salary."
The bench of K. Narasimha Chary (a judicial member) has restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify the availability of brought-forward losses for the purpose of setting off the current year's income against losses.
Interest Income Earned By A Co-Operative Society Eligible For Deduction: ITAT
Case Title: Amore Commercial Premises Co-Op Society Ltd. Versus Central Processing Centre
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments held with co-operative banks would be eligible for claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act.
The two-member bench of Kuldip Singh (Judicial Member) and S Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member) found that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessee's denial of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).
Case Title: Nan Lian Ship Management LLC versus ACIT (Int. Tax)
The Mumbai bench of the ITAT has ruled that hire charges received by the owner of a ship for chartering its vessel under a ‘Time Charter Agreement’, is not taxable as ‘royalty’ under Section 9(1) (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if control and dominance over the ship remained with the assessee/ owner and not with the charterer.
2% TDS Deductible On Common Area Maintenance Charges: ITAT
Case Title: HV Global Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that 2% TDS is deductible on common area maintenance charges.
The two-member bench of C.M. Garg (Judicial Member) and Pradip Kumar Khedia (Accountant Member)has observed that the common area maintenance charges were not part of the actual rent paid to the owner by the assessee company. Payments of rent and common area maintenance charges have been made to distinct entities or companies; therefore, the authorities below were not right in creating the liability payable by the assessee firm.
Case Title: Blue Stampings & Forgings Ltd. Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the assessing officer was not justified in taking drastic action and rejecting books of account that are audited solely on the basis of general remarks that photocopies of the bills have been produced instead of original bills.
Case Title: Galaxy Construction and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT
Citation: ITA No.1402/PUN/2019
The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable by the law itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
The bench of S.S. Vishwanethra (Judicial Member) has observed that the appellant cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, and, therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in levying a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
Delay By State To Issue Necessary Certificates: ITAT Quashes Revision Order
Case Title: Kusum Mehta Versus CIT
The Calcutta Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed the revision proceedings initiated in the name of the deceased person.
The revenue department acted quickly after receiving the legal heir certificate, according to the two-member bench of George Mathan (Judicial Member) and Arun Khodpia (Accountant Member). However, there has been a delay at the level of the state government in issuing the necessary certificates. Fault cannot be placed on the revenue or the assessee.
Credit For TCS Available To Assessee In Whose Hand Income Is Assessed To Tax: ITAT
Case Title: M/s Hotel Ashok Garden versus ITO
The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has reiterated that credit for Tax Collected at Source (TCS) should be given to the assessee who is finally and lawfully assessed to tax in respect of the income on which TCS has been collected, irrespective of the person in whose name the TCS certificate has been issued.
Unmarried Daughter’s Jewllery And Mother’s Jewellery Can Be Kept In Family Home: ITAT Deletes Addition
Case Title: Shakun Devi Versus Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
The Allahabad Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted the addition as the jewellery belonging to unmarried daughters will be kept along with the assessee’s jewellery in a family home where they are living together.
Section 14A Disallowance Not Warranted If No Exempt Income Is Earned: ITAT
Case Title: Indian Farmers Fertiliser Versus DCIT
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act is not warranted if no exempt income is earned.
The two-member bench of Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member) and Anil Chaturvedi (Accountant Member) has observed that Section 14A envisages that there should be actual receipt of income, and hence Section 14A of the Act will not apply where no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year.
Expenses Incurred During Regular Course Of Business Cannot Be Treated As Capital Expenses: ITAT
Case Title: ACIT Versus Drishti Soft Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that expenses incurred during the regular course of business cannot be treated as capital expenses.
The two-member bench of Yogesh Kumar US (Judicial Member) and Anil Chaturvedi (Accountant Member) has observed that the payment was made towards the professional fee, which includes monthly retainer fees for the professional services.
IBC Has Overriding Effect On All The Acts Including Income Tax Act: ITAT
Case Title: ACIT Versus ABW Infrastructure Ltd.
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) has an overriding effect on all acts, including the Income Tax Act, as per Section 178(6) of the Income Tax Act, effective from November 1, 2016.
Misplacing FD Is Not The Ground For Deleting Addition Of Interest: ITAT
Case Title: Smiths Detection Asia Pacific Pte Ltd Versus The Dy. C.I.T
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the addition of interest on fixed deposits (FDs).
Case Title: M/s. Jet Airways (India) Limited Versus DCIT
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has observed that Jet Airways has failed to comply with the notices issued by the lower authorities in spite of several opportunities. Jet Airways was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 25,000 for being delinquent before the lower authorities which was to be paid to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within 30 days.
ITAT Deletes Addition On Cash Deposits During Demonetisation
Case Title: Mrs. Usha Narayan Chaware Versus ITO
The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted the addition of cash deposits during demonetization.
Case Title: M/s. Google LLC Versus JCIT (OSD) (IT)/DCIT (IT)
The Banglore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that amounts paid by Google India to Google US with reference to seconded employees do not come within the fees for technical services (FTS) or fees for included services (FIS) under the Income Tax Act or under the India-US Tax Treaty.
Case Title: Sai Prerana Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) was not authorized to carry out such adjustments for disallowance of deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Deutsche India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Asstt. Director of Income Tax
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that payment towards an employee’s contribution to the provident fund after the due date is not allowable as a deduction.
Case Title: ZF Steering Gear (India) Ltd. Versus DCIT
The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has observed that lease rent paid for acquiring mining rights is capital in nature and income tax deductions cannot be allowed.
Case Title: Inteva Products Netherlands BV Versus ACIT
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that payments received from foreign companies on account of business support services are held to be taxable as fees for technical services (FTS).
Case Title: ACIT Versus The Green Environment Services Co-op Society Ltd.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed the assessee’s claim of Rs. 7,77,73,600 as a provision for expenses of solid waste disposal.
NFAC Bound By The Decision Of Jurisdictional High Court: ITAT
Case Title: Nagesh Consultants Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) was bound by the binding decision of the jurisdictional high court, where the AO was situated.
ITAT Upholds Income Tax Addition On Amount Received For Arbitration Settlement
Case Title: TGE Gas Engineering GmbH Versus DCIT
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the income tax addition on the amount received for arbitration settlement from Indian Oil Infrastructure & Energy Services.
Case Title: M/s. Tata NYK Shipping Pte. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation-3, New Delhi.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that an order by assessing officer on whether a particular entity is entitled to a treaty benefit or not is a highly contentious issue and cannot be considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue under section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case title: M/s PVR Pictures Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, Circle 19(2), New Delhi
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has clarified the provisions of clause (iii) of Explanation-1 to Section 115JB (2) for computation of book profits for taxation. The Tribunal held that amount which is lower between unabsorbed depreciation and business loss deserves to be set off against the current Assessment Year (A.Y.) book profits in terms of the provisions of Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. v. DCIT International Taxation Circle, Noida
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that no disallowance shall be made to the assessee in regards to the chargeable sum paid by the assessee to a foreign company without deduction of tax.
Late Filing Of Return, Denial Of Section 80P Exemption Not Justified: ITAT
Case Title: Ambaradi Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Versus DCIT
The Rajkot Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that denying the exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act solely on the basis of the assessee's late filing of a return is not justifiable.
Income Earned From Offshore Supply Of Escalators And Elevators Is Not Taxable In India: ITAT
Case Title: Schindler China Elevator Company Ltd. Versus ACIT
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has observed that income earned by the assessee from the offshore supply of escalators and elevators is not taxable in India.
Confusion In Relation To The Service Of Intimation Through Email: ITAT Condones Delay Of 9 Years
Case Title: M.K. Hotels & Resorts Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
The Amritsar Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that there was significant ambiguity regarding the service of notice under Section 143(1) to the assessee via email.
Employers Have To Deposit Employees' Contribution Towards EPF/ESI On Time To Avail Income Tax Deduction: ITAT
Case Title: The National Housing Bank Versus CIT(A), NFAC
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that employers have to deposit employees' contributions towards EPF/ESI on time to avail of income tax deductions.
Income Tax Disallowances Made On Ad Hoc Basis Without Specifying A Particular Mistake: ITAT
Case Title: Dynamix India Drill-Con Co. Versus ACIT
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has observed that disallowances have been done on an ad hoc basis without specifying a particular mistake.
Case Title: Flipkart India Pvt Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed the appeal of Flipkart India against disallowance of over Rs.15.5 Crore of expenses claimed by it under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, towards Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP).
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Garg Versus ITO
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that failure of the kidney was a reasonable cause of ailment that prevented the assessee from supplying the documents and replies to the AO.
Case Title: Jowheri Jalaluddin Mullick Versus ITO Versus Income Tax Officer
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has observed that the reasons, as recorded for reopening the reassessment, are to be examined on a standalone basis to determine the validity of proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
Assessee Not Responsible To Explain Recipients Of Receipts Shown In Form No. 26AS: ITAT
Case Title: M/s Travelport LP Versus The Dy. C.I.T
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the assessee is not responsible to explain the recipients of the receipts shown in Form No. 26AS.
Husband Entitled To TDS Credit On Interest Earned From Amount Gifted To His Wife: ITAT
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT), Pune Bench ruled that the husband is entitled to TDS credit on interest earned on the amount gifted to his wife.
Case Title: Bhatia Energy and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO
The Raipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the characterization of the share application money of Rs. 25 lac by the AO as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act is clearly devoid and bereft of necessary verifications.
ITAT Allows Section 54F Deduction Though Capital Gain Scheme Account Was Not Opened
Case Title: T. Pandian Versus ITO
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed the deduction under section 54F though the capital gain scheme account was not opened.
