Direct Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 14 April To 20 April 2024

Delhi High Court NFAC Can't Sustain Invocation Of Penalty Proceedings Based On Their Own Failure To Lodge Claim Under IBC Within Time: Delhi High Court Case Title: M Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre The Delhi High Court has held that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) cannot sustain invocation of penalty proceedings based on their own failure to lodge a claim under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) within time. Failure Of Dept. To Comply With ITAT's Order: Delhi High Court Directs Dept. To Remove Demands, Penalty From ITBA portal Case Title: Sunshine Capital Limited Versus DCIT The Delhi High Court has held that the Department has failed to comply with Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT's) Order in passing a fresh assessment order within the stipulated time. Bombay High Court Filing Delayed Returns, Power To Condone Delay Is Conferred On CBDT To Ensure Substantial Justice; Bombay High Court Case Title: Pankaj Kailash Agarwal verses ACIT Explaining the scope of powers u/s 119(2)(b) of the Income tax Act, the Bombay High Court recently clarified that the legislature has conferred power on the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (respondent no.3) to condone the delay to enable the authorities to do substantive justice to the parties by disposing the matter on merits. “Certainly The High Court Should Not Scrutinise An Order Of The ITSC As An Appellate Court,” Says Bombay High Court Case Title: The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Versus Income Tax Settlement Commission The Bombay High Court has held that interference with the orders of the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) should be avoided, keeping in mind the legislative intent. The scope of interference is very narrow, and certainly the High Court should not scrutinize an order of the ITSC as an appellate court. Unsettling reasoned orders from the ITSC may erode the confidence of assessees. The larger picture has to be kept in mind. Refund More Than 10% Of Tax As Determined On Regular Assessment, CEAT Entitled To Interest On Refund Of Rs. 5.24 Cr.: Bombay High Court Case Title: Ceat Limited Versus Commissioner of Income Tax The Bombay High Court has held that Ceat Limited is entitled to interest on a refund of Rs. 5.24 crore as the refund is more than 10% of tax as determined on regular assessment. Madras High Court Opportunity For Hearing Was Refused Due To Assessee's Failure To Click On Appropriate Button, Madras High Court Quashes Faceless Assessment Order Case Title: M/s.Bay-Forge Private Limited Versus Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 162 The Madras High Court has quashed the order as the opportunity for hearing was refused due to the assessee's failure to click on the appropriate button. Gujarat High Court Gujarat High Court Quashes Demand Notice And Assessment Order In Absence Of Any Claim Not Forming Part Of Resolution Plan Case Title: Surya Exim Limited Thro Director Bhawani Singh Versus Union Of India & Ors. LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 42 The Gujarat High Court has quashed the demand notice and assessment order in the absence of any claim not forming part of the resolution plan (RP). Allahabad High Court S.132B(1)(i) Income Tax Act | Power Of Assessing Authority To Decide Application For Release Of Seized Assets Not Automatically Abated After 120 Days: Allahabad HC Case Title: Dipak Kumar Agarwal vs. Assessing Officer And 4 Others 2024 Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 248 The Allahabad High Court has held that the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority to decide the application for release of seized assets under Section 132B (1)(i) does not abate after a period of 120 days from the date on which the last of the authorizations for search under section 132 or for requisition under section 132-A was executed. [Income Tax Act] Supreme Court Decision In UOI v. Ashish Agarwal Applicable To Parties Who Challenged Notice U/S 148: Allahabad High Court Case Title: M/S Arvind Kumar Shivhare vs. Union Of India And Another Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 249 The Allahabad High Court has held that Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal had not issued a general mandamus quashing all notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court observed that the order of Supreme Court was limited to those notices which had been challenged before the Apex Court and various High Courts in India. [House Tax] Authorities Acted In Undue Haste By Giving Only One Day's Notice For Hearing: Allahabad High Court Quashes Assessment Order Case Title: Hotel President Through Its Partner / Proprietor And Another v. State Of Up And 2 Others Case...

Direct Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 14 April To 20 April 2024

Mariya Paliwala

Tags