Tax
Continuation Of Proceedings On Ceased Entity Is Not Curable U/s 292B: Delhi High Court
While following the decision of Apex Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited [(2020) 18 SCC 331], the Delhi High Court held that the initiation or continuation of assessment or reassessment proceedings after a company cease to exist due to merger pursuant to a Scheme of Arrangement, is not sustainable, and cannot be cured by applying...
Scheduled Commercial Bank Had Utilized Opening Balance In Bad Debts Account To Reduce Total Bad Debts Written Off: Bombay HC Allows Benefit Of Sec 36(1)(Vii)
The Bombay High Court held that deduction claimed by bank u/s 36(1)(vii) in respect of write off bad debts is allowable without any adjustment to the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia) which was adjusted with the bad debts claimed in the subsequent AY.The High Court held so after finding that the taxpayer had utilized the opening balance in the “bad...
Mistake Apparent On Record Pertaining To 'Disputed Tax' & 'Tax Arrears' Can Be Rectified Under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court held that the once the relief is already accorded to assessee in the original assessment order, then Designated Authority (DA) can rectify the mistake apparent on record by allowing the assessee to file a fresh Form 3 under VSV Act.On examination of the relevant provisions outlined under Vivad Se Vishwaas Act (VSV Act), the Division Bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma...
Entire TDS Along With Penal Interest Stands Paid By Taxpayer Upon Intimation By I-T Dept.: Kerala HC Quashes Proceedings U/s 276B Of Income Tax Act
The Kerala High Court held that taxpayer cannot be prosecuted u/s 276B of Income tax Act simply because of failure to deduct and pay TDS to the government, once the non-compliance was sorted out and the tax along with penalty was sufficiently deposited to the government, after being informed of the delinquency. As per Section 276B of the Income Tax Act, if a person fails to pay...
'Technological Impediment Can't Be A Reason To Harass Assessee' : Supreme Court Asks Income Tax Dept, CBDT To Resolve Software Issues
Technological impediment cannot be a reason to harass an assessee, said the Supreme Court while asking the Income Tax Department to upgrade its software to ensure that mistakes do not occur in the future.The Court directed that the Central Board for Direct Taxes should also take necessary steps for rectifying the software.A bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta was hearing...
Taxation And Other Laws Act, 2020 Does Not Alter Sanction Powers For Reopening Conferred U/s 151 Of Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court recently clarified that the TOLA [Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation & Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020] authorisation merely enables the competent authority to take action within the extended time period which would have otherwise been regulated by Sections 148 and 149, but does not amend the structure for approval which stands erected by virtue of...
Show Cause Notice U/s 37C Of Central Excise Act Issued At Wrong Address Cannot Be Proceeded: Gauhati High Court
The Gauhati High Court recently held that the recourse to Sub-Clauses (b) & (c) of Clause 37C (1) of the Central Excise Act, is not permitted if the show cause notice was not sent at the proper address of the registered taxpayer.The High Court also clarified that Sub-Clause (b) and Sub-Clause (c) of Section 37(C)(1) of the Act of 1944 can only be pressed into service, if the service of...
Enterprise Contracting With Assignee Of Govt Recognised Concessionaire For Developing “Infrastructural Facility” Can Claim Deduction U/S 80IA(4) Of Income Tax Act: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court has held that an enterprise contracting with the assignee of a government recognised concessionaire for infrastructure development can, based on facts and circumstances of the case, be given the benefit of deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961.The provision prescribes deductions in respect of enterprises engaged in infrastructure...
S.110 Customs Act- Failure To Disclose Reasons For Confiscating Goods 'Draconian', Violates Article 14, Renders Provisional Attachment Illegal: Patna HC
The Patna High Court has held that failure on part of the customs officer to record reasons for confiscating goods under Section 110 of Customs Act, renders the provisional attachment “illegal”.The provision empowers a customs officer to seize goods if he has 'reason to believe' that such goods are liable to confiscation under the Act, and prescribes subsequent procedure.Bench of Justices...
Assessing Officer Can't Issue Reassessment Notice On Mere 'Change Of Opinion' About Material Already Available At Time Of Scrutiny: Gujarat HC
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that an Assessing Officer under the Income Tax Act 1961 cannot issue notice for re-assessment of income under Section 148, on mere “change of opinion” on the material which was already furnished by the assessee at the time of scrutiny under Section 143(2).Division bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Niral R. Mehta observed, “In our...
Continuation Of Order Of Attachment And Garnishee Notice Is Impermissible When Appeal Filed Against Order Of Assessment: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court stated that when the assessee files an appeal against an order of assessment, the enforcement actions that have been taken, such as property attachment and garnishment notices, should not continue.The Division Bench of Justices R Raghunandan Rao and Harinath. N observed that the assessee has preferred an appeal and has paid 10% of the disputed tax, as required...
Appeal Dismissed For Non-Payment Of Pre-Deposit; Revenue Can't Challenge Restoration After Accepting Deposit: Punjab and Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court stated that if the appeal of the assessee was previously dismissed due to non-payment of the pre-deposit, and they have since made that payment, which has been accepted by the Revenue, then the Revenue cannot later challenge the restoration of the appeal.The Division Bench of Justices Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Sanjay Vashisth observed that “Tribunal can...