Tax Weekly Round-Up [23rd December - 29th December 2024]

HIGH COURTS Bombay HC ITO Acted On Complete Change Of Opinion On Same Material With Intent To Review Assessment Order Passed By Him: Bombay HC Quashes Reopening Case Title: Imperial Consultants and Securities vs. Deputy CIT Case no.: Writ Petition No. 1783 of 2022 While setting aside the reassessment proceedings, the Bombay High Court held that 'change of opinion' or 'review of already completed assessment', is not permitted to AO. While holding so, the Division Bench of Justice G.S Kulkarni and Justice Advait M Sethna observed that there is no whisper of allegations against the assessee that income that has escaped assessment was attributable to the assessee for not disclosing fully & truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Calcutta HC GST Department's Effective Adjudication Of Matter Cannot Be Scuttled By Seeking Writ Remedy: Calcutta High Court Case Title: Britannia Industries Limited vs. Union of India Case no.: W.P.A 24534 of 2024 While reiterating that it shall not interfere in matters requiring fact-finding and adjudication, which fall squarely within the statutory domain, the Calcutta High Court advised the manufacturer/ supplier to exhaust the statutory remedies provided under the CGST Act, 2017 including submitting a detailed response to the SCN. “The statutory framework under the CGST Act provides adequate mechanisms for addressing the petitioner's concerns, including responding to the SCN, participating in adjudication proceedings and availing appellate remedies if dissatisfied with the outcome”, observed a Single Judge Bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj. Amendment In Finance Act Can't Retrospectively Affect Vested Right Of Taxpayer To Adjudicate Settlement Application U/S 245(D): Calcutta HC Case Title: Pradeep Kumar Naredi vs. Union of India Case Number: MAT 375 of 2002 The Calcutta High Court recently reiterated that when the settlement applications were filed before the date on which the Finance Act 2021 did not come into effect, then taxpayers had vested right of preferring the application in absence of any statute prohibiting the said application. The Division Bench of Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya reiterated that retrospective legislation cannot affect the vested rights. Bombay HC S.147 Of IT Act Doesn't Postulate Review Jurisdiction Such That Assessment Can Be Reviewed By AO Intending To Form Different Opinion: Bombay HC Case Title: Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) vs. Union of India Case no.: Writ Petition No. 4817 of 2022 The Bombay High Court ruled that the materials which were already available before AO and which ultimately were considered in passing assessment order u/s 143(3), cannot form basis of reopening, on ground that such materials were ignored in finalizing assessment. Section 147 does not postulate review jurisdiction, so that assessment can be reviewed by the Assessing Officer intending to form different and/or a new opinion, added the Court. The Division Bench of Justice G S Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla observed that AO cannot assume jurisdiction under garb of re-assessment u/s 147, to reopen assessment merely on basis of change of opinion and/or review assessment order passed against assessee. Belated Filing Of Form 9A Is Not Attributable To Trust: Bombay HC Allows Exemption U/S 11 After Condoning Delay Under IT Act Case Title: Nav Chetna Charitable Trust vs, CIT (Exemption) Case no.: Writ Petition No. 470 of 2024) The Bombay High Court held that bonafide delay in filing Form 9A on part of trust, has to be construed as procedural lapse and shall be condoned by exercising powers u/s 119(2) of Income tax Act. The Division Bench of Justice G S Kulkarni and Justice Advait M Sethna observed that that the jurisdictional AO completely lost sight of the fact that at the time when assessee claimed deductions towards depreciation and capital expenditure u/s 11(1) by filing the revised computation, the time limit for submission of Form 9A had lapsed, due to change of procedure. Delhi HC Interest Earned On Borrowed Funds Kept For Acquiring Coal Mine Is Not Revenue Receipt If Coal Mine Is Aborted, Borrowings Are Repaid: Delhi HC Case Title: Pr. CIT vs. International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd Case Number: ITA 1174/2018 The Delhi High Court recently accepted that the interest received on borrowed funds, which were temporarily held in interest bearing deposit, is a part of the capital cost and is required to be credited to Capital Work In Progress. The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that if the interest is earned on the amounts temporarily kept in fixed deposits in course of acquisition of coal mine to set up its business, then interest earned would require to be accounted for as part of capital value of...

Tax Weekly Round-Up [23rd December - 29th December 2024]

Kapil Dhyani

Tags