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

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...

Interest Earned On Borrowed Funds Kept For Acquiring Coal Mine Is Not Revenue Receipt If Coal Mine Is Aborted, Borrowings Are Repaid: Delhi HC

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...

ITO Acted On Complete Change Of Opinion On Same Material With Intent To Review Assessment Order Passed By Him: Bombay HC Quashes Reopening

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.Facts of the...

No Penalty Can Be Levied U/S 271B Of IT Act If No Prejudice Is Caused To Dept On Account Of Belated Furnishing Of Audit Report: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court held that circumstances under which AO can absolve a taxpayer from payment of penalty u/s 271B are discernible from a reading of Sec 273B, which states that no penalty can be imposed on an assessee u/s 271B for breach of the provisions, if he proves that there was "reasonable cause" for the said failure.The provision of Section 44AB of Income tax Act prescribes a procedure of audit of accounts by certain categories of assessees and deals inter alia with the manner in which...

Amendment In Finance Act Can't Retrospectively Affect Vested Right Of Taxpayer To Adjudicate Settlement Application U/S 245(D): Calcutta HC

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.The purport of Sec 245(C)(5) is not to make an application...

Discounts Received From Manufacturer & Passed On To Customers During Car Sale Doesn't Constitute Service, Not Liable To Service Tax: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that discounts/incentives received from manufacturer and passed on to customers during car sales constitute sale of goods, not service, hence not liable to service tax. The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Rajeev Tandon (Technical Member) has observed that “sale/target incentive/incentive on sale of vehicles and incentive on sale of spare parts received by assessee, could not be...

GST Department's Effective Adjudication Of Matter Cannot Be Scuttled By Seeking Writ Remedy: Calcutta High Court

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...

Tax Weekly Round-Up [16th December - 22nd December 2024]

SUPREME COURT Coconut Oil Classifiable As 'Edible Oil' For Central Excise Tariff; If Sold As Cosmetic, Taxable As 'Hair Oil' : Supreme Court Case : Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem v. M/s Madhan Agro Industries (Pvt) Ltd Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1766 OF 2009 The Supreme Court has held that pure coconut oil, packaged and sold in small quantities ranging from 5 ml to 2 litres, would be classifiable as 'Edible oil' for the purposes of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It...

Notice Issued Against Dead Person Is Invalid; Participation Of Legal Heirs In Proceedings Doesn't Make It Legal: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court stated that notice issued against a dead person is invalid and participation of legal heirs of deceased in the proceedings won't make it legal. The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and K.V. Jayakumar observed that “the consent of the parties cannot confer jurisdiction to the assessing authority for initiation of an action which is otherwise illegal and 'non-est'.” In this case, the appellants are the legal heirs of Late assessee who expired...

'Hiring' Of Helicopters By Andaman & Nicobar Admin Not Exigible To Tax Under Central Sales Tax Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the supply of helicopters by Pawan Hans Ltd. to the Andaman & Nicobar Islands administration, under an agreement executed in the year 2003, is not exigible to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja reasoned that the agreement did not qualify as a 'sale' between the parties. It noted that while Pawan Hans (appellant) was obliged to place a helicopter at the service of the A&N...

Orders Issued U/S 73 Of CGST Act Must Carry Digital Or Physical Signature Of Officer In Order To Be Treated As Valid: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court stated that orders issued under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts must carry the digital or manual signature of the officer passing the order in order to treat the order to be a valid order. The Bench of Justice Gopinath P. was considering the issue that whether orders issued under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts must carry the digital or manual signature of the officer passing the order in order to treat the order to be a valid order for the purposes of the...

Assessment Pending Prior To Resolution Cannot Be Quantified After Approval Of Resolution Plan: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the resolution applicant cannot be burdened with new claims after approval of a resolution plan. The bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit held that the principle underlying the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is to give a fresh start to the successful resolution applicant. It held that any action obstructing the aforementioned principle is illegal and beyond the 'Lakshman Rekha' of the Code. “The...