Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 15 To 21 October, 2023

Supreme Court U.P. Trade Tax Act | ‘Tinted Glass’ To Be Taxed As “Goods Or Wares Made Of Glass”, As it is Different from ‘Plain Glass’: Supreme Court Case Title: M/S Triveni Glass Limited v COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. Case No.: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 896 The Supreme Court has held that ‘Tinted Glass Sheet’ is different from ‘Plain Glass sheet’ and is thus liable to be taxed as “goods or wares made of glass” under Entry 4 of Notification No.5784 dated 07.09.1981, issued by State Government. Accordingly, the manufacturer of Tinted Glass is liable to pay tax @15% on such goods. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement Cannot Be Enforced Unless Notified By Centre Under Section 90 Income Tax Act : Supreme Court Case Title : Assessing Officer Circle (International Taxation) New Delhi v. M/s Nestle SA C.A. No. 1420/2023 + ten connected appeals Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 911 The Supreme Court has held that a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) cannot be given effect to by a court, authority or a tribunal unless it has been notified by the Central Government under Section 90 of the Income Tax Act. Delhi High Court Transfer Pricing Report, Appellate Authorities Can Adopt Different Method From That Adopted By Assessee: Delhi High Court Case Title: PCIT Versus Hellmann Worldwide Logistics India Pvt. The Delhi High Court has held that the appellate authorities are not precluded from adopting a method different from that adopted by the assessee in the transfer pricing report. Delhi High Court Upholds Sales Tax Demand Against Berger Paints On Stock Variations Case Title: Berger Paints India Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes The Delhi High Court has upheld the sales tax demand against Berger Paints on stock variations. Subscription Fee Received By Deloitte Exempted From Tax On Principle Of Mutuality: Delhi High Court Case Title: CIT Versus Deloitte Touche Tohmastu The Delhi High Court has held that subscription fees received by Deloitte are exempted from tax on the principle of mutuality. Non-Adherence To Mandatory Requirement Of Passing Draft Assessment Order Invalidates Final Assessment Order: Delhi High Court Case Title: Sinogas Management Pte Ltd Versus DCIT The Delhi High Court has held that non-adherence to the mandatory requirement of passing a draft assessment order invalidates the final assessment order. Gujarat High Court Issue Of New Shares Is Not Transfer, Section 56(2)(vii)(c) Income Tax Act Not Invokable : Gujarat High Court Case Title: The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Ahmadabad Versus Jigar Jashwantlal Shah The Gujarat High Court has held that the shares that have been allotted to the assessee were not “received from any person,” which is the fundamental requirement for invoking Section 56(2)(vii)(c). The property must pre-exist for application of Section 56(2)(vii)(c), which is clear from the intention of the legislature”. Jharkhand High Court Section 234B Interest Has To Be Charged On The Assessed Income And Not On The Returned Income: Jharkhand High Court LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 66 Case Title: PCIT Versus Manoj Kapoor The Jharkhand High Court has held that interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act has to be charged on the assessed income and not on the returned income. There Should Be Finality To Assessment, Can’t Have Repeated Reassessment Proceeding On The Dictate Of Audit Party: Jharkhand High Court LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 67 Case Title: Rungta Mines Limited Versus State of Jharkhand The Jharkhand High Court has held that if the assessing authority is allowed to initiate repeated re-assessment proceedings against an assessee merely on the dictate of the audit party, there would not be finality of assessment. The assessee would have a sword of Damocles hanging over it in perpetuity. Allahabad High Court UPGST | For Claiming ITC, Burden On Assesee To Prove Genuineness Of Transaction Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Case Title: M/S Malik Traders v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others The Allahabad High Court has held that input tax credit cannot be claimed by an assesee if he has failed to discharge the burden to prove the actual transaction and physical movement of goods beyond doubt. GST | Circular Does Not Override Statutory Provisions: Allahabad High Court Quashes Demand Of Rs. 235 Crores Against Vivo Mobile Case Title: M/S Vivo Mobile India Private Ltd. vs. Union Of India And 4 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 433 of 2021] Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 386 The Allahabad High Court has quashed demand of Rs. 235.52 Crores raised against Vivo Mobile India Private Limited by GST Authorities vide order under Section 74(9) of the Goods and Service Tax Act 2017. Amount Paid Upfront As Premium For Lease Of Hospital For ...

Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 15 To 21 October, 2023

Mariya Paliwala

Tags