Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 7 To 13 January 2024

Supreme CourtDefinition Of 'Manufacture' U/s 2(e)(1) Of UP Trade Tax Act Does Not Include Blending And Packaging Tea: Supreme CourtCase Title: Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P. v. M/s Mishra Tea Blending And Packing Industries, UP [CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5677-5678/2011]Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1076Recently, the Supreme Court has held that the definition of 'manufacture' under Section 2(e)(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 does not include blending and packaging tea.Hiring Of Motor Vehicle Or Cranes Is Not 'Sale Of Goods' If Control Over Equipment Is Retained By Contractor, VAT Can't Be Levied: Supreme CourtCase Title: M/s. K.P. Mozika v Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 26The Supreme Court has held that the hiring of motor vehicles/cranes from a contractor is a service and would not attract Sales Tax or Value Added Tax (VAT) assuming the transaction to be the sale of goods. The Court clarified that the transfer of the right to use the goods not only includes possession but also control over goods by the user. If the control over the goods remains with the contractor during the hire period, then it cannot be termed as sale of goods and only service tax can be levied.Delhi High CourtInvestment In Shares In Indian Subsidiary 'Capital Account Transaction', Not Income: Delhi High CourtCase Title: M/S Angelantoni Test Technologies Srl V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income TaxThe Delhi High Court has held that investment in shares by a company in its Indian subsidiary is a “capital account transaction” which does not give rise to any income. Therefore, the same cannot be treated as income for taxation.Delhi High Court Directs Income Tax Commissioner To Accept BCI's Form No.10 After Condoning DelayCase Title: Bar Council Of India Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)The Delhi High Court has directed the income tax commissioner to accept Form No. 10 submitted by the Bar Council of India (BCI) after condoning the delay.Income Tax: Denial of 80lA Benefit In 4th Year Of Assessment, U-Turn By Department Is Not Justified: Delhi High CourtCase Title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus M/S Bt Global Communications India Pvt. Ltd.The Delhi High Court has held that the Principal Commissioner Income Tax (PCIT) wrongly invoked jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act and fell in error by taking a U-turn in the fourth assessment year, thereby denying the benefit of Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act.Coconut Oil Sold By Amway As Hair Oil, Not Classifiable As Edible Oil Under DVAT Act: Delhi High CourtCase Title: Amway India Enterprises Private Limited Versus Commissioner, Vat, Delhi & Ors.The Delhi High Court has held that coconut oil sold by Amway as a hair oil cannot be classified as edible oil under the DVAT Act.Taxpayer Not Provided Opportunity To Object To Retrospective Cancellation Of GST Registration: Delhi High Court Directs RestorationCase Title: M/S Een Een Sales Corporation Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service TaxThe Delhi High Court has held that taxpayers are not provided an opportunity to object to the retrospective cancellation of GST registration.Bombay High CourtDefect Notice Caused No Prejudice Since Last 30 Years, Assessee Clearly Understood Purport Of Notice: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Veena Estate Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income-TaxThe Bombay High Court has held that even assuming that there was a defect in the notice, it had caused no prejudice to the assessee, and the assessee “clearly understood” what the purport and import of the notice were under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The principles of natural justice cannot be read in abstract form.Madras High CourtReopening Of Assessment Inspired From 'Review' & 'Change Of Opinion' By Subsequent AO Is Deprecated: Madras HCCase Title: BNY Mellon Technology Private Limited Vs Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 12While setting aside the order disposing of the assessee's objection to re-opening of the assessment pursuant to the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the consequent reassessment order, the Madras High Court held that there is no scope for re-opening the assessment, since the reasons cited for same was inspired from change of opinion of the Assessing officer.Karnataka High CourtTax Exemption Can't Be Denied To Govt's Helicopter Pilots Trainer For Non-Furnishing GSTIN: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: M/S Hatsoff Helicopter Training P Limited Versus State Of KarnatakaThe Karnataka High Court has held that tax exemption cannot be denied to the government's helicopter pilot trainer merely for non-furnishing goods and service tax identification numbers (GSTIN) initially.Calcutta High Court Calcutta High Court Quashes Ex Parte Order Imposing Excise Duty On Incineration Of Lean Gas Used In Generation Of ElectricityCase Title: M/s Himadri Speciality Chemical & Anr. ...

Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 7 To 13 January 2024

Mariya Paliwala

Tags