Tax Weekly Round-Up: March 31 - April 06, 2025

HIGH COURTSDelhi High CourtDelhi High Court Grants Relief To Lufthansa Airlines, Sets Aside Revenue's Order Denying 'Nil' TDS CertificateCase title: Lufthansa Cargo AG v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors.Case no.: W.P.(C) 11376/2024In a relief to German cargo airline Lufthansa, the Delhi High Court set aside the Revenue's order denying nil TDS certificate to the company for the financial year 2024-25.“Where the petitioner has been granted certificate at nil withholding tax for prior assessment years and there is no issue to the chargeability of the petitioner's income to tax under the Act, the impugned certificate requiring withholding tax at reduced rate instead of nil rate, cannot be sustained,” Court said.Following Delhi HC Nudge, Customs Takes Measures To Prevent Harassment Of Genuine Air Travellers Carrying Gold JewelleryCase title: Qamar Jahan v. Union of IndiaCase no.: W.P.(C) 198/2025Following successive judgments of the Delhi High Court criticising the Customs for detaining personal jewellery of air travellers and failure to comply with mandatory statutory procedure for detention, the Department has undertaken various steps to prevent harassment of genuine travellers.In its affidavit, the Department submitted that a detailed stakeholder consultation is currently being carried out by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs and some time will be required to amend the Baggage Rules. Meanwhile, the above steps are being implemented.Customs Must Preserve CCTV Footage Upon Receiving Complaint Of Officials Illegally Seizing Foreign Currency From Travellers: Delhi HCCase title: Ramdiya Verma v. Commissioner Of Customs New Delhi & Anr.Case no.: W.P.(C) 4004/2025The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs Department to ensure that relevant CCTV footage is preserved whenever it receives a complaint from any traveller coming to India from abroad, regarding illegal detention of his foreign currency by its officials. “...if a complaint was received in this manner, the CCTV footage ought to be preserved immediately as the same is available only for 30 days. Moreover, the CCTV footage of the Petitioner at the time of departure could also have been preserved to determine whether the Petitioner was wearing a gold kada or not at the time of departure. Therefore, in such cases, immediate action ought to be taken when such a complaint is received,” a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta said.Karnataka High CourtInflating Contract Figures & Complaining That Tax Authorities Based Decision On Such Figures Amounts To Defrauding State In Two Ways: Karnataka HCCase Title: M/s Yellalinga Electricals v. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial TaxesCase Number: SALES TAX APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2024The Karnataka High Court stated that inflating contract figures and complaining that tax authorities have premised their decision on such figures, amounts to defrauding state. “Claiming higher contract amount by inflated figures and thereafter complaining that the Tax authorities have premised their decision on such figures, virtually amounts to defrauding the State, in two-ways. Such an assessee does not deserve any relief at the hands of this Court,” stated the Division Bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and Ramachandra D. Huddar.Madras High CourtSections 43B & 40A Income Tax Act | Which Provision Prevails When Both Commence With Non-Obstante Clause? Madras High Court ClarifiesCase Title: M/s Sanmar Speciality Chemicals Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-TaxCase Number: T.C.(A).No.493 of 2013The Madras High Court while referring to sections 43B and 40A Income Tax Act explained which provision prevails when both commence with a non-obstante clause. The Division Bench of Justices Dr. Anita Sumanth and G. Arul Murugan stated that “the Rule that a general provision should yield to specific provision springs from the common understanding that when two directions are given one encompassing a large number of matters in general and another to only some, the latter directions should prevail as being more specific in nature.”Works Contract For Track Doubling & Infrastructure Under RVNL Is Liable To 12% GST: Madras High CourtCase Title: STS-KEC(JV) v. The State Tax OfficerCase Number: W.P.(MD). Nos. 3938 to 3942 of 2024The Madras High Court stated that the works contract for track doubling and infrastructure under RVNL is liable to 12% GST.Justice Mohammed Shaffiq stated that “it may be relevant to keep in mind that while exemption notifications must be strictly construed, it certainly would not mean that the scope of the exemption notification can be curtailed by importing conditions or giving an artificially restrictive meaning to the words in an exemption notification.”Rajasthan High CourtRajasthan HC Quashes Prosecution Sanction Against E-Commerce Company For Delay In Depositing TDS Due To Late Submission Of Bills By Amazon, E-BayTitle: M/s Fortune Infovision Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: March 31 - April 06, 2025

Kapil Dhyani

Tags