Direct Tax Weekly Round-Up: 14 To 20 July 2024

Bombay High CourtJAO Cease To Have Jurisdiction To Issue Reassessment Notice Outside Faceless Assessment: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Royal Bitumen Private Limited, Mumbai Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-TaxThe Bombay High Court has held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) would cease to have jurisdiction to issue any notice under Section 148A(b) and to take further actions under Section 148A(d) and Section 148 of the Act, outside the faceless assessment.Investment Allowance Available On Exchange Rate Fluctuation: Bombay High CourtCase Title: M/s. Tolani Ltd. Versus DCITThe Bombay High Court has held that investment allowance is available on exchange rate fluctuations.Investment Allowance Available On Exchange Rate Fluctuation: Bombay High CourtCase Title: M/s. Tolani Ltd. Versus DCITThe Bombay High Court has held that investment allowance is available on exchange rate fluctuations.Section 148A(d) Order Passed Without Section 151 Sanction Is Illegal: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Umang Mahendra Shah Versus Union of India & Ors.The Bombay High Court has held that if an order is passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act in the absence of an appropriate sanction in terms of the provisions of Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, the order and the consequent notice under Section 148 would be required to be declared illegal.JAO Not Empowered To Issue Section 148A(b) Notice Under Faceless Assessment: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Venus Jewel Versus ACITThe Bombay High Court has held that it was not permissible for the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to issue a notice under Section 148A(b), as the same would amount to a breach of the provisions of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act.Karnataka High CourtReassessment Notice To Non-Existing Entity Is Not Legally Tenable: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Informatica Business Solutions Private Limited Versus AcitThe Karnataka High Court has held that the reassessment notice to a non-existing entity is not legally tenable.Kerala High CourtTax Effect In Appeals Below Monetary Limit Of Rs.1 Crore; Kerala High Court Dismisses Dept's Appeal2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 445Case Title: PCIT Versus Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable TrustThe Kerala High Court has held that the tax effect in the appeals filed by the income tax department pertaining to assessment years 2006–07, 2007–08, 2008–09, 2009–10, and 2010–11 is well below the monetary limit of Rs. 1 crore and is liable to be dismissed.Assessment Order Downloaded From Common Portal Amounts To A Valid Service: Kerala High Court2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 444Case Title: Sunil Kumar K Versus The State Tax Officer-I, KottarakkaraThe Kerala High Court has held that the assessment order downloaded from the common portal amounts to a valid service.Disallowance Operate Against Erring Employer Assessee When Employees' Contribution To EPF/ESI Not Made Within Due Date: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Unitac Energy Solutions (India) Pvt.Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income TaxThe Kerala High Court has held that the disallowance operates against erring employer assessee when employees' contribution to EPF/ESI not made within the due date.Long Term Finance Provided For Purchase Of Residential House, Bank Entitled For Deduction ; Kerala High CourtCase Title: The South Indian Bank Ltd Versus ACITThe Kerala High Court has held that the South Indian Bank is entitled to the deduction envisaged under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act in respect of the long-term finance provided by it for the construction and purchase of houses in India for residential purposes.

Direct Tax Weekly Round-Up: 14 To 20 July 2024

Mariya Paliwala

Tags