Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up:26 June To 2 July, 2022

High Courts: Madras High Court: IBC Proceedings Can't Dilute Rights Of The Income Tax Department To Reopen Assessment: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s. Dishnet Wireless Limited versus the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) The Madras High Court has ruled that proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 cannot dilute the rights of the Income Tax Department to reopen the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court noted that the Resolution Plan submitted by the assessee did not contemplate any concession from the Income Tax Department, even though notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued to the assessee prior to the submission of the Resolution Plan. Writ Petition Not Maintainable If Alternative Statutory Remedy Was Available With The Taxpayer: Madras High Court Reiterates Case Title: M/s. Progressive Stone Works Versus The Joint Commissioner (ST) Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 271 The Madras High Court has reiterated that a writ petition is not maintainable if an alternative statutory remedy was available to the taxpayer. "The petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2007. Therefore, this writ petition cannot be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation", the Single Bench of Justice C. Saravanan observed. Meghalaya High Court: AssesseeTo Be Given Minimum 7 Days Time To Respond To The Reassessment Notice: Meghalaya High Court Case Title: Highgrowth Commodities Trade Private Limited Versus The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. The Meghalaya High Court bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh has held that the assessee should be given a minimum of 7 days' time to respond to the reassessment notice. The assessee had challenged the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the notice had been issued without following the mandatory procedure under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act. Rajasthan High Court : Protection Plea: Rajasthan High Court Permits Police To Charge Married Couple If It Has Adequate Income Case Title: Pooja Gurjar & Anr. v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 199 While hearing a protection petition filed by a married couple before the Rajasthan High Court, the vacation bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed that if the petitioner's income is more than taxable income under the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Superintendent of Police after considering the financial aspect may charge appropriate financial charges from them. ITAT: Fee Paid For Client Referral Services Is A Normal Business Payment And Not FTS: ITAT Delhi Case Title: M/s. Hemera India Pvt. Ltd. versus DCIT The Delhi Bench of ITAT has ruled that fees paid by the assesssee to a non-resident for providing services of introduction of clients would fall in the definition of payments made to an intermediary and the same cannot be said to be a technical service. The Bench, consisting of Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member) and Shamim Yahya (Accountant Member), held that the remittances made by the assessee to its intermediary for providing client referral services would not come within the scope of 'fees for technical services' (FTS) under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that the same was a normal business payment. Expenditure Incurred After Set-Up of Business Is Allowable As Deduction, Even If No Business Income Is Earned By The Assessee : ITAT Chennai Case Title: RBL Hotels Private Limited versus ACIT The Chennai Bench of ITAT has ruled that once the business of an assessee is set-up, all the expenditure incurred by it would be allowable as deduction, notwithstanding the fact that no business income was earned by the assessee during the relevant year. The Bench, consisting of Mahavir Singh (Vice President) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member), reiterated that there may be an interval between the setting-up of a business and the commencement of a business, however, all the expenses incurred during the said interval would be available as deduction. Reassessment Proceedings Can't Be Initiated On Same Set Of Facts Available: ITAT Case Title: Bombay Real Estate Development Co. P. Ltd. Versus ITO The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated by applying a fresh application of mind to the same set of facts available at the time of the original scrutiny assessment proceedings. The ITAT observed that where the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer disclose no more than a mere change of opinion, the reassessment proceedings and assessment order pursuant thereto are liable to be quashed. AAR : Supply Of Printed Leaflet Product As Per Content Supplied By...

Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up:26 June To 2 July, 2022

Parina Katyal

Tags