Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 29 May To 4 June, 2022

Karnataka High CourtJust Because The Ratio For Payment Of Service Tax Not Adhered To, Assessee Not Liable To Pay Double Tax As Penalty: Karnataka High Court Case Title: The Vice Chairman Settlement Commission & Anr. versus M/s Zyeta Interiors Pvt. Ltd & Anr. The Karnataka High Court has ruled that merely because the ratio in which service tax was required to be paid by the service recipient and the service provider was not strictly adhered to, the assessee cannot be made liable to pay double tax by denying him the CENVAT Credit. The Bench, consisting of Justices S. Sujatha and Shivashankar Amarannavar, held that the reverse charge mechanism should not lead to double taxation. Allahabad High Court High-Pitched, Unreasonable Reassessment Orders, Allahabad High Court Directs The Authorities To Take Action Case Title: Harish Chandra Bhati Versus Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Noida Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 268 The Allahabad High Court has directed the centre and the tax department to take action against officials for issuing high-pitched and unreasonable reassessment orders. The division bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerji has observed that the centre should ensure to establish a monitoring cell at the level of government or CBDT within a month if it has not been established so far. The cell will ensure regular monitoring of the Local Committees, as well as follow-up actions and reviews by the Principal Chief Commissioners of Income Tax and Zonal Members, as well as an analysis of the quarterly reports. Jammu & Kashmir High Court Education Cess Lawfully Refunded To The Assessee, Can't Recover Later Based On Change Of View Of The Supreme Court: J&K and Ladakh HighCourt Case Title: Commissioner of CGST and Commissioner of Central Excise versus M/s Narbada Industries The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that the revenue department cannot seek the return of the amounts lawfully refunded to the assessee in consonance with an earlier decision of the Supreme Court, on the ground that the Supreme Court has changed its opinion on the said matter in a decision rendered subsequently. The Bench, consisting of Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sanjay Dhar, held that a case cannot be reopened after the expiry of the limitation period merely on the ground that subsequently the view of the court on the said aspect has changed or that subsequently a different opinion has been expressed by the courts in another case. Uttarakhand High Court Income Of Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority Not The Income Of The State Government, Not Exempt Under Article 289(1): Uttarakhand High Court Case Title: Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority versus Additional Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Utt) 20 The Uttarakhand High Court has reiterated that even if a Development Authority constituted under an Act of the State Legislature does not carry on any trade or business within the meaning of Article 289(2) of the Constitution of India, it continues to have a distinct legal personality separate from the State and, therefore, its income cannot be considered to be the income of the State so as to be exempt from Union taxation under Article 289(1). ITAT Onus To Prove Identity, Creditworthiness And Genuineness Of Transaction Lies On Assessee: Pune ITAT Case Title: VEL Software Limited Versus DCIT The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), consisting of Partha Artha Sarathi Chaudhury (Judicial Member) and Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member), has ruled that the onus to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of a transaction lies with the assessee. Assessee Entitled To Additional Depreciation On The Power Plant And Installed Windmill: Delhi ITAT Case Title: Nalwa Steel And Power Ltd Versus DCIT The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) consisting of Yogesh Kumar U.S. (Judicial Member) and B.R.R. Kumar (Accountant Member) has ruled that assessees are entitled to additional depreciation on the power plant and the installed windmill. Assessee Discharges Primary Onus Submitting Documentary Evidence: ITAT Deletes Addition of Unexplained Cash Credits Case Title: ITO Versus M/s. Hanumant Ingots Pvt. Ltd. The Raipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), consisting of Ravish Sood (Judicial Member) and Jamlappa D Battull (Accountant Member), has deleted the addition made on account of unexplained cash credits. Consideration For Resale Of Computer Software Is Not The Payment Of Royalty For Use Of Copyright In Computer Software: ITAT Case Title: Kony Inc. Versus ACIT The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) consisting of Chandra Mohan Garg (Judicial Member) and Shamim Yahya (Accountant Member) has held that consideration for the resale of...

Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 29 May To 4 June, 2022

Mariya Paliwala

Tags