Mere Delay In Remittance Of TDS Doesn’t Attract Penalty Under S 271C Income Tax Act: Supreme Court

Case Title: M/s US Technologies International Pvt Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 285

The Supreme Court has ruled that no penalty is leviable under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on mere delay in remittance of the tax deducted at source (TDS) after the same has been deducted by the assessee.

Income Tax Act | For A Company To Be A "Resident" In India, Domicile Or Registration Irrelevant; Test Is Where De Facto Control Lies : Supreme Court

Case Titled: Mansarovar Commercial Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 291

The Supreme Court has ruled that under the Income Tax Act, 1961, the domicile or the registration of the company is not at all relevant, and the determinate test is the place where, the sole right to manage the company and the control of the company lies.

Same Activity Can Be Taxed As ‘Goods’ & ‘Services’ : Supreme Court Upholds Levy Of Service Tax On “Engineering Design & Drawings”

Case Title: Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax v M/S Suzlon Energy

Citation : 202LiveLaw(SC) 298

The Supreme Court has held that the import of “Engineering Design & Drawings” falls under the category of “design services” under section 65(35b) read with Section 65(105) (zzzzd) of the Finance Act, 1994, and are subject to levy of service tax. On the sole ground that “Engineering Design & Drawings” prepared and supplied by sister company were shown as ‘goods’ under the Customs Act and in the bill of entry, such services cannot be excluded from the definition of “design services” under the Finance Act, 1994.

S. 80-IB Of Income Tax Act - Assessee Not Entitled To Deduction Under On Profit Derived From DEPB And Duty Drawback Schemes: Supreme Court

Case Title: M/s. Saraf Exports vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-III

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 299

The Supreme Court has ruled that the assessee is not entitled to deduction under Section 80- IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the amount received / profit derived from the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme (DEPB) and the Duty Drawback Schemes.

Mortein Spray, Harpic & Lizol Cleaner- Not Classifiable as ‘Insecticide’ Under KVAT; Dettol A 'Medicament': Supreme Court

Case Title: M/s Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner Commercial Taxes & Ors.

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 306

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices M. R. Shah and Krishna Murari has ruled that Mosquito Mats, Coils and Vaporizers, Mortein Insect Killers, Harpic Toilet Cleaner and Lizol Floor Cleaners, are not be classifiable under Entry 44(5) of the 3rd Schedule to the Kerala VAT Act (KVAT), 2003 as ‘insecticides’.

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Punjab And Haryana High Court Directs To Refund Tax Collected Illegally With 6% Interest

Case Title: Diwakar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that if the tax is collected without any authority of law, the same would amount to depriving a person of his property without any authority of law and would infringe on his right under Article 300 A of the Constitution of India.

ITAT

Income Tax Exemption On The Voluntarily Payment Made By The Employer To The Employee Out Of Appreciation: ITAT

Case Title: Mahadev Vasant Dhangekar Versus The Asstt. CIT, NFAC, Delhi

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the payment has been made voluntarily by them out of appreciation for the employee and thus falls outside the rigours of Section 17(3)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.

ITAT Quashes Penalty Notice Which Was Silent On Specification Of Charges

Case Title: M.A. Projects Private Limited Versus ACIT

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed the penalty notice, which was silent on the specification of charges.

The bench of Astha Chandra (a judicial member) and Shamim Yahya (an accountant member) has observed that no specification of charge in the penalty notice leads to the same becoming void, and the penalty on that count is to be deleted.

Expenditure Made On Ice Boxes Are Capital Expenditure: ITAT Upholds Disallowance Against Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages

Case Title: M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the expenditure made on ice chests or ice boxes was made for acquiring or bringing into existence an asset for the enduring benefit of the business and was of the nature of capital expenditure.

CESTAT

CESTAT Allows CENVAT Credit Of Service Tax Paid On Corporate Membership Of Club

Case Title: M/s Emco Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise-Mumbai-III

The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has allowed the CENVAT credit of service tax paid on corporate memberships of clubs.

The bench of Anil G. Shakkarwar (Technical) has observed that corporate membership of the club is utilized for business meetings and sales meetings, and therefore, for the period prior to April 1, 2011, service tax paid on corporate membership of the club was admissible for availment of CENVAT credit.