Punjab Roadways Cannot Deprive Himachal Pradesh Govt Of Passenger Tax, Interest On Delayed Payment When Its Buses Are Plying On Territory: HC

The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently directed the Punjab Roadways to clear the interest due upon it for delayed payment of passenger tax and surcharge to the HP government. A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Satyen Vaidya observed that the body first failed to deposit any tax with the authorities of Himachal Pradesh despite the fact that it...

Order Passed U/S 148A(d) Income Tax Act Is Not Appealable, Writ Jurisdiction Can Be Invoked: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act 1961 is not an appealable order, therefore, the only remedy with an aggrieved party is to invoke writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Proceedings under Section 148A are initiated when Income Tax officers suspect that a taxpayer may have concealed income during...

When Is Action For Imposition Of Penalty 'Initiated' U/S 271C Of Income Tax Act For Failure To Deduct Tax At Source: Delhi HC Explains

The Delhi High Court recently explained when an action for imposition of penalty under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be said to have been “initiated”. Section 217 states that if any person fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax at source (TDS), he shall be liable to pay a penalty equal to the amount of the tax which he failed to deduct as aforesaid. The...

Tax Monthly Digest: October 2024

1. Kerala High Court Strikes Down Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules Retrospectively, Finds Them Ultra Vires To CGST Act The Kerala High Court struck down Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules holding that it was ultra vires to the Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act and was manifestly arbitrary. Justice P. Gopinath noted that Section 16 has not imposed...

Recovery Action Against Company Directors Cannot Be Initiated If Status Of Assessee Is Non-Existent: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court ruled that recovery actions against the directors of a company cannot be initiated if the status of the assessee is non-existent. The Division Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and G. Arul Murugan observed that “while in the case of amalgamation, it is only the apparent and outer shell of the company which is destroyed…. However, in the case of...

[S.263 IT Act] Revisionary Power Can Be Invoked When Order Meets Twin Conditions Of Being Erroneous, Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that in order to invoke Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Principal Commissioner must satisfy “twin conditions”, i.e. form an opinion that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is “erroneous” and “prejudicial” to the interests of the Revenue. The provision confers power of revision upon the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,...

Cross-Examination Requests In Show Cause Proceedings Cannot Be Allowed Without A Reply From Noticee: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court stated that a request for cross-examination of a witness in a Show Cause proceeding cannot be allowed if no reply on merits has been provided by the noticee. The Division Bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and C. Saravanan observed that “………the question of entertaining an application for cross-examination of the witnesses without any reply on merits by...

Hotel Replacing Damaged Furniture, Carpets Is Current Expenditure Allowable U/S 37 Income Tax Act: Telangana HC

The Telangana High Court has held that the expenditure incurred by a hotel on replacement of damaged items is a current expenditure, allowable under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 37 of Income Tax Act states that any business expenditure, excluding capital expenditure and the individual's personal expenses, that is spent for the business's operations shall be...

[Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax] Assessee Liable For Tax On Proceeds From Sale Of Unredeemed Articles By Auctioneers: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court stated that assessee is liable to tax on consideration received from sale of unredeemed articles by auctioneers. The Division Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and G. Arul Murugan observed that “the levy of penalty under Section 12(3)(a), in the case of non-filing of returns, is, automatic. Admittedly, the assessee has not filed the returns and hence, the basis...

Amount Received In Advance For Services To Be Treated As Income Of Assessee, Chargeable Under Income Tax: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court ruled that any amount received in advance for services should be treated as the income of the assessee and is, therefore, subject to income tax. The Division Bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and C. Saravanan observed that “if “Accounting Standards” are properly applied by an assessee, the “accounting income” for the payment of income tax will...

Entry Made In Dispatch Register Is Not Primary Evidence To Prove Service Of Notice On Assessee: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has made it clear that an entry in the dispatch register maintained by the Revenue is not primary evidence to show service of notice on an assessee. In the case at hand, Petitioner-assessee was aggrieved by rejection of application made under section 154 in Income Tax Act, 1961 for rectification. Petitioner was issued a notice for scrutiny assessment...

Owner Of Electric Vehicle Purchased Prior To October 14, 2022 Can't Seek Refund Of Tax Citing Subsequent Exemption Notification: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that the owner of an electric vehicle which was purchased prior to October 14, 2022 cannot seek refund of tax citing a subsequent notification exempting the payment of One Time Tax. Petitioner had sought refund of One Time Tax paid in respect of his Hybrid Vehicle purchased on October 13, 2022. The relief was sought on the strength of...