[IT Act] Section 80IB Doesn't Mandate Setting Off Losses Of One Eligible Unit Against Profits Of Another Eligible Unit: Mumbai ITAT

The Mumbai ITAT recently clarified that an industrial undertaking was not required to set off the losses incurred by it in one eligible unit against the profits earned from another eligible unit for the purpose of calculating deduction u/s 80-IB.As per Section 80-I of Income tax Act, 1961, where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived from an...

Genuine Short-Term Capital Loss From Sale Of Shares Can't Be Prevented From Being Set Off Against Long-Term Capital Gain: Mumbai ITAT

The Mumbai ITAT held that a taxpayer is not prevented from arranging her affairs within the legal framework and through legitimate means to reduce his tax liability.While pointing that the Income Tax Statute does not require the assessee to pay more tax, the Division Bench of Saktijit Dey (Vice President) and Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member) observed that “short-term capital loss derived...

[GST] Assesee Cannot File For Requisite Documents Once Plea Is Accepted And Notice Is Issued: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that an assessee cannot file for the supply of requisite documents after the adjudicating body has accepted the plea placed by them and issued notice pursuant to it. The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that the same would be impermissible, especially in a case where statutory appeal was available to the...

CGST Rules Prescribing Time-Bound Submission Of Declaration Under TRAN-1 To Claim Transitional Credit Not Directory But Mandatory: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court has held that Rules prescribing the 'time and manner' for claiming transitional credit, in addition to the statutory procedure provided under Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, are mandatory in nature. A division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman thus held that prescriptions under Section 117...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: December 02 - December 08, 2024

SUPREME COURT Subsequent Purchaser Of Imported Vehicle Cannot Be Asked To Pay Customs Duty; Liability On Importer : Supreme Court Case Title: NALIN CHOKSEY VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KOCHI The Supreme Court ruled that the 'subsequent purchaser' of an imported motor car cannot be called an 'importer' to attract the liability under the Customs Act, 1962 to pay customs duty...

Summary Of SCN In GST DRC-01 Cannot Substitute Requirement For Issuance Of SCN U/S 73(1) Of CSGT Act: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court stated that issuance of summary of Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 cannot substitute requirement for issuance of show cause notice under section 73(1) of CSGT Act. The Bench of Justice Manish Choudhury observed that “…….the issuance of the Summary of the Show Cause Notice, Summary of the Statement and Summary of the Order do not dispense with the...

Appeal Cannot Be Dismissed As Not Maintainable On Account Of Non-Payment Of Requisite Fee: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court stated that appeal cannot be dismissed as not maintainable on account of non-payment of requisite fee. The Division Bench consisting of Justices Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Sanjay Vashisth was considering a case where the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as not maintainable on the ground that the assessee/petitioner had failed to pay Rs....

[Income Tax Act] Placing Funds In One Account Before Transferring It To Another Does Not Attract S. 69A: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the finding of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that when an agreement between parties specifies a direct transfer of money, doing so indirectly by keeping the funds in a distinct account before sending them to the final account, does not place the money under the definition of 'unexplained money' as per...

[Income Tax] No Substantial Question Of Law Arises If Perversity Cannot Be Shown In Order Passed By Tribunal: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that no substantial question of law arises in a case where no perversity can be shown in the order passed by the Income Tax Tribunal in appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides for an appeal to be filed before the High Court against the decision of an Appellate...

Allegation of Manufacturer 'Clandestinely' Clearing Goods To Escape Tax Must Be Based On 'Tangible Evidence': Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that where a manufacturer is booked by the tax authorities for clandestinely clearing its goods to escape tax, the charge must be based on “tangible evidence”. A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja further observed, “In adjudication proceedings to establish the charge of clandestine removal and under valuation, Revenue is...

Laying Down Optical Fibre Cables To Enhance Communication Network For Defence Forces Is Exempt From Service Tax: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently declared that Telecommunications Consultants India Limited, a central public sector undertaking which secured a Project floated by BSNL for laying down Optical Fibre Cable Network, is exempt from service tax since the service is in the nature of setting up a civil infrastructure so as to benefit the defence forces in having a better communication...

Notice U/S 148A(b) Flagging Bogus Transactions Cannot Be Faulted For Merely Mentioning Sale Entry As That Of Purchase: Gauhati HC

The Gauhati High Court has dismissed a challenge to an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deeming the Petitioners' case fit for issuance of notice for escapement of income assessment under Section 148. In doing so, it held that the order cannot be faulted merely because the alleged bogus transactions, whose existence the Petitioners (X and Y) did not deny in...