S.107 CGST Act Prescribes Independent Regime Of Limitation For Filing Appeals, Application Of S.5 Limitation Act Stands Excluded: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that since Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes an “independent regime” to determine the limitation period for filing statutory appeals, the provision for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands excluded.A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma observed, “The facility to...

No Unfettered Right To Cross-Examine Person Making Statements U/S 138(B) Customs Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a person facing charges under the Customs Act, 1962 does not have an unfettered right under Section 138B, to cross-examine the informant or person making incriminatory statements.Section 138(B) of the Customs Act of 1962 deals with the admissibility of statements made during customs proceedings.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: February 03 - February 09, 2025

SUPREME COURTIncome Tax Act | Offence Committed Before Show-Cause Notice Compoundable As Covered By 'First Offence' In Compounding Guidelines: Supreme CourtCase title: VINUBHAI MOHANLAL DOBARIA Vs CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCase no.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 20519 OF 2024The Supreme Court on January 7 set aside the Gujarat High Court's judgment dated March 21, 2017, through which...

Imposition Of Conditions By Customs For Provisional Release Of Seized Goods 'Discretionary': Delhi HC Tunes Down 130% Bank Guarantee

The Delhi High Court has held that the imposition and severity of conditions imposed by the Customs Department for permitting provisional release of seized goods is “discretionary” in nature.In doing so, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma scaled down the alleged onerous condition imposed on an importer, for executing a Bank Guarantee of 130% of the...

Tax Monthly Digest: January 2025

SUPREME COURTMotor Accident Claims - Tax Returns Can Be Accepted To Determine Income Only If They Are Appropriately Produced : Supreme CourtCase name: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand.Case no.: SLP (C) No. 30491 of 2018The Supreme Court, recently (on January 02), while deciding a motor accident compensation claim case, observed that monthly income could be fixed...

Income Tax Act | Offence Committed Before Show-Cause Notice Compoundable As Covered By 'First Offence' In Compounding Guidelines: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on January 7 set aside the Gujarat High Court's judgment dated March 21, 2017, through which the rejection to the compounding application of the Appellant for the assessment year 2013-2014, for having filed the belated income tax return, was upheld on the ground that only for the "first offence" compounding of offence is possible. Since the Appellant had filed delayed income...

Not An Enabling Provision, Proscribes Reassessment Action Beyond Limitation: Delhi HC Explains Timelines U/S 149 Of Income Tax Act

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, which prescribes a limitation period for initiating reassessment against an assessee, is not an enabling provision but rather a proscription on the Assessing Officer's powers.A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed,“The opening sentence of Section 149(1) of the...

Direct Tax Annual Digest 2024: Part II

Cash-In-Hand Out Of Business Profits Declared In Return U/s 44AD, Can't Be Plainly Added As Unexplained Money: Delhi ITATWhile allowing the appeal against the addition on account of unexplained money, the New Delhi ITAT held that if the assessee's contention is that it had turnover exceeding the limit u/s 44AD of the Income Tax Act, then CIT(A) ought to have acted in accordance with law....

Superannuation Fund | Limit On Deduction Of Employer's Contribution Applies To Initial/ Annual Contribution, Not Additional Payments: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that the limit prescribed under Section 36(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act 1961, on deductions that an employer can seek for contributions made towards superannuation funds, applies only at the stage of setting up the fund or making ordinary annual payments.A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said any contribution...

Direct Tax Annual Digest 2024: Part I

ITAT Deletes Additions Against Unsuspecting Investor In A 'Penny Stock' To Make Quick ProfitThe Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the assessee was an unsuspecting investor who transacted in a 'penny stock' with a view to earning a quick profit, and since his involvement in any dubious transaction relating to price rigging or connection with exit providers...

Baggage Rules Apply Only To Luggage Of International Travellers, Not To 'Reasonable Amount' Of Jewellery Worn In-Person: Madras HC

The Madras High Court has made it clear that Baggage Rule, 2016 framed under the Customs Act, 1962 apply only to the baggage carried by an international traveller.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that the Rules cannot be extended to articles like jewellery, “carried on the person” of a traveller.The bench observed, “The Customs Act, 1962, enables the Central Government to make Rules...

Notice Issued To Non-Existing Entity Post-Merger Is Substantive Illegality, Dept Cannot Cite Technical Glitch: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court stated that notice issued to a non-existing entity post-merger is a substantive illegality and not some procedural violation. “we cannot condone the fundamental error in issuing the impugned notices against a non-existing company despite full knowledge of the merger. The impugned notices, which are non-est cannot be treated as “good” as urged on behalf...