Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 7 August To 13 August, 2022

Delhi High Court Definition Of Relative Under Senior Citizens Act Can't Be Treated At Par With Income Tax Act, 1961: Delhi High Court Case Title: Miss Indira Uppal Versus UOI Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 764 The Delhi High Court has held that the petitioner's real intent was to ensure that gift tax is not levied on donee. The petition does not promote the maintenance and welfare of senior citizens. The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Preetam Singh Arora has observed that as per the object of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Income Tax Act, 1961, the expression "relative" is not used in a similar context. The term "relative" being wholly context-specific, there is no reason to assume that the criteria used in defining it in one context will provide even a useful starting point in another context. Income Tax Dept. Can't Withhold Refunds In Mechanical And Routine Manner: Delhi High Court Case Title: Trueblue India LLP Vs Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle The Delhi High Court has held that an order under Section 241A of the Income Tax Act cannot be passed in a mechanical and routine manner. The refunds cannot be withheld just because the notice under Section 143(2) has been issued and the department wants to verify the claim for deduction under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act. The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the order under Section 241A was generic and no attempt was made by the department to substantiate how the grant of the refund is likely to adversely affect the revenue. Amendment To Section 36(1)(va) Of Income Tax Act Is Prospective In Nature: Delhi High Court Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 versus TV Today Network Ltd. The Delhi High Court has allowed the assessee- TV Today Network Ltd.'s claims for deduction of expenses in nature of 'consumption incentive' offered to the advertisers for booking more advertisement space. The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, reiterated that the 'due date', in case of delay by the assessee in depositing the employees' contribution to Provident Fund under Section 36(1) (va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is to be reckoned as the date for filing the return under Section 139 (1) and not the due date as prescribed under the relevant Labour statute. The Court added that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va), vide the Finance Act, 2021, is 'for removal of doubts' and hence, it cannot be presumed to be retrospective since it alters the law as it earlier stood. Sum Directed To Be Refunded To Assessee Is A debt In The Hands Of Dept.: Delhi High Court Allows Interest On Refund U/S 244A Case Title: PCIT Versus Punjab & Sind Bank Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 776 The Delhi High Court held that the Punjab & Sind Bank is entitled to a refund of money deposited by it upon re-computation by the department and interest is liable to be paid under Section 244A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that a sum has been found refundable to the assessee as a consequence of a reduction in the taxable income. The sum directed to be refunded to the assessee is a debt in the hands of the department, and for the department to term "payment of this debt" as "interest" is fallacious. In fact, it is on the payment of this debt that the assessee is demanding that the department be liable to pay interest for the period that the department retained the money. Bombay High Court Exporter Not Required To Hold IEC Number To Avail Benefits Under'Service Exports From India' Scheme: Bombay High Court Case Title: Smarte Solutions Pvt. Ltd. versus Union of India and Ors. The Bombay High Court has ruled that the requirement of holding an Import Export Code (IEC) number at the time of rendering services in order to avail the benefits under the Services Export from India Scheme (SEIS), as imposed by the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 (FTP), is against the intent and purpose of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act). The Division Bench of Justices S.V. Gangapurwala and Vinay Joshi held that the said condition cannot be termed as mandatory in nature for availing the benefits under the SEIS since it is against the principal legislation, i.e., the FTDR Act. Assessee Eligible For SVLDRS Declaration Since The Demand Of Duty Quantified On Or Before June 30, 2019: Bombay High Court Case Title: B. Chopda Construction Private Limited V/s. Union of India and Ors. The Bombay High Court has allowed the declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 on the grounds that although there was an audit, the amount of duty quantified has also been quantified before 30th...

Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 7 August To 13 August, 2022

Mariya Paliwala

Tags