Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 13 November To 19 November 2022

Supreme CourtSec.194H Income Tax Act Attracted For 'Supplementary Commission' Earned By Travel Agents ; Airlines Liable To Deduct TDS : Supreme CourtCase Title: Singapore Airlines Ltd. vs C.I.T., Delhi Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 959 The Supreme Court held that Section 194H of the Income Tax Act is attracted in the case of Supplementary Commission amounts earned by the travel agent and therefore Airlines are liable to deduct TDS in this regard. The bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and MM Sundresh upheld the Delhi High Court judgement and overruled the Bombay High Court judgement in CIT v. Qatar Airways [2009 SCC OnLine Bom 2179] that had held otherwise. Delhi High CourtDelhi High Court Stays Reassessment Order Against IBIBO Group Case Title: IBIBO Group Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT The Delhi High Court has stayed the reassessment order against an online travel agent, IBIBO Group, and issued a notice to the income tax department. "The Assessing Officer is permitted to pass the reassessment order, yet the same shall not be given effect to and shall be subject to further orders to be passed by this Court," the division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora ordered. Addition/Disallowance Can't Be Made Merely On Assessee's Admission During Search: Delhi High Court Case Title: PCIT Versus PGF Ltd. The Delhi High Court has held that the statement recorded during the course of the search, on a standalone basis, without any reference to material found during the search, would not empower the AO to make additions/disallowance merely on the assessee's admission. Bombay High Court Time Limit To Refer Statement Of Case By CESTAT To High Court, Under Section 130A (4) Of The Customs Act, Is Directory: Bombay High Court Case Title: Asit C. Mehta Financial Services Limited versus The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) The Bombay High Court has ruled that the time limit within which the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) is required to refer the statement of the case to the High Court, as prescribed in Section 130A (4) of the Customs Act, 1962, is only directory and not imperative in nature. The Division Bench of Justices K.R. Shriram and A.S. Doctor held that the CESTAT is a judicial body, over whose actions the revenue authorities have no control. It added that if the time limit within which the CESTAT is required to make a reference, as provided in Section 130A (4), is construed as mandatory, it might deprive the revenue authorities of their right to have a question of law considered by the High Court. Assessee Can't forgo the deemed excise credit: Bombay High Court Orders Tran 1 Or Tran 2 to be filed on GST portal Case Title: Euro Pratik Sales Corporation Vs. Union of India and Ors The Bombay High Court has held that it will be wholly unfair if the assessee ends up having to forgo the deemed excise credit, particularly when under Section 29(3) his liability will continue even after cancellation of registration. Karnataka High Court Open Purchase Orders Are Standing Offers, Movement of goods are mere stock transfers, No Sales Tax Payable: Karnataka High Court Case Title: M/s. BASF India Ltd. Versus State of Karnataka Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 461 The Karnataka High Court has held that open purchase orders are only standing offers that do not constitute a confirmed "agreement to sell" and that movements of goods are mere stock transfers. Kerala High Court Interest Not Leviable For Belatedly Deducting TDS If There Is No Liability: Kerala High Court Case Title: Special Tahsildar Versus Union Of India The Kerala High Court has held that where there is no liability to deduct TDS, the mere fact that TDS was so deducted and paid to the Income Tax Department belatedly, cannot give rise to a claim for interest under Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act. Madras High Court DGFT Cannot Amend Foreign Trade Policy; Can't Restrict The Benefit Of SHIS Scheme: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s. Polyhose India Private Limited versus The Additional Director General of Foreign Trade Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 464 The Madras High Court has ruled that the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), in exercise of its power to clarify the doubts regarding the interpretation of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), as formulated by the Central Government, cannot amend the very policy itself. Andhra Pradesh High Court 18% GST Payable On Manufacturing Of Alcohol For Human Consumption By Way Of Job Work: Andhra Pradesh High Court Case Title: M/s.Esveeaar Distilleries Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that 18% GST is payable on the manufacturing of alcohol for human consumption by way of job work. The division bench of Justice C. Praveen Kumar...

Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 13 November To 19 November 2022

Mariya Paliwala

Tags