Tax
Condonation Of Delay Application Should Focus On Sufficient Reason, Not Merits Of Claim U/S 119(2)(B) Of Income Tax Act: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court stated that an application for condonation of delay should focus on whether there was sufficient reason to condone the delay under Section 119(2)(B) of the Income Tax Act, rather than on the merits of the assessee's claim.Section 119(2)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 empowers CBDT to direct income tax authorities to allow any claim for exemption, deduction, refund and any other relief under the income tax act even after the expiry of the time limit to make such claim.The...
Outstanding Demand Under Maharashtra Settlement Can't Be Adjusted Against Refund Payable Under Maharashtra VAT Act: High Court
The Bombay High Court held that authorities under MVAT Act while exercising powers under Maharashtra Settlement of Arrears of Taxes, Interest, Penalties or Late Fees Act, 2022, cannot invoke provisions of Section 50 of MVAT and that too in review proceedings under Settlement Act.The Division Bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that there is no provision under Settlement Act which provides for calculation of outstanding arrears of a particular year to be arrived at...
Temporary Suspension Of Business Activity On Account Of Ill Health Does Not Warrant Cancellation Of Taxpayer's GST Registration: Delhi HC
Finding that proper officer passed the order cancelling taxpayer's GST registration with retrospective effect, the Delhi High Court clarified that such order does not indicate any reason for cancelling the GST registration much less from retrospective effect.The High Court found that the only allegation against the assessee was that it was non-existent, which was sufficiently addressed by the assessee in his reply by claiming that he had to go to Rajasthan due to ill health of his father....
GST Order Cannot Be Challenged Citing No Personal Hearing If Hearing Not Requested After Receipt Of SCN: MP High Court Dismisses Plea
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at its Indore bench, dismissed a writ petition which was filed by Future Consumer Limited, challenging an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax under Section 73 of GST Act. The petitioner stated that they were denied the right to personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the Act. The division bench comprising of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi discussed on the petitioner's claim regarding fulfilment of procedural requirement for...
Transfer Pricing | Entities Operating On Economic Upscale Can't Be Included As 'Comparables' Of Those Working On Cost-Plus Pricing: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that entities commanding high profit margins cannot be included as comparables of those working on cost-plus markup basis, to determine Arm's Length Price for international transactions. A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja thus ordered the exclusion of TCS E-Serve International Ltd., TCS E-Serve and Infosys BPO Limited from the list of comparables of the Appellant- Cadence Designs. The Appellant had submitted that while...
Usage Of Chemicals As Raw Materials Doesn't Detract From Categorisation As Chemicals; Must Be Taxed At 8%: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court stated that the use of chemicals as raw materials would not change their categorisation as chemicals. Therefore, they must be taxed at 8% only. The Division Bench of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and Harinath N. was addressing a tax dispute in which the assessee challenged the Revisional Authority's imposition of a higher tax rate of 12% on goods, instead of the 8%. G.O.Ms.No.189, issued on 7th February 2005, revises the tax rate on the sale of “All...
“Judge Cannot Usurp Role Of Disciplinary Authority”: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Order Halting Disciplinary Proceedings Midway
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside the order of the Single Judge, which had allowed the assessee's petition and quashed the disciplinary proceedings midway, specifically at the stage when the enquiry had already been completed. The Division Bench of Justices G. Narendar and Kiranmayee Mandava observed that “………the Judge could not have usurped the role of the disciplinary authority and scuttled the proceedings midway. The statute vests the authority, either to impose or not to...
Andhra Pradesh HC Grants Assessee Opportunity To Seek Revocation Of Registration Cancellation Missed Due To Ongoing Insolvency Proceedings
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has allowed the assessee to file an application for the revocation of the cancellation of their registration, which they missed due to ongoing insolvency proceedings. The Division Bench of Justices R Raghunandan Rao and Harinath N observed that because the assessee had to go through the insolvency proceedings under the IBC, 2016, they should be given some leeway to help get their business back on track. The assessee/petitioner, engaged in the real...
Residence Country Can't Deny Credit On Taxes Levied By Source Country: Mumbai ITAT Grants Treaty Benefit To Amarchand Mangaldas
The Mumbai ITAT ruled that tax credit cannot be denied in cases where the interpretation of the residence country about the applicability of a treaty provision is not the same as that of source jurisdiction about the provision and yet the source country had levied taxes directly or by way of tax withholding. The Bench of Beena Pillai (Judicial Member) and Ratnesh Nandan Sahay (Accountant Member) clarified that that the DTAA provisions eliminate double taxation in all cases where the...
DVAT Act | Assessee 'Automatically' Becomes Entitled To Interest U/S 42 On State's Failure To Adhere To Mandatory Timelines For Refund: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that when a refund of tax or penalty paid in excess under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 is delayed by the authorities, the assessee “automatically” becomes entitled to interest on such refund.Section 38(1) “obligates” the Commissioner to refund the amount of tax, penalty or interest, if paid by a person in excess of the amount due from him.Section 38(3)(a) provides the timeline for a refund from the date on which the return is furnished or the claim...
Mentioning Proposed Penalty In Declaration Under SVLDR Scheme Not Incorrect: Gujarat HC
The Gujarat High Court has held that Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) is applicable to any show cause notice for penalty/late fee, irrespective of whether it is under adjudication or appeal. A division bench of Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Mauna M. Bhatt cited FAQs of the scheme as per which, any person who has a show cause notice (SCN) for demand of duty/tax and where the final hearing has not taken place as on June 30, 2019, is eligible to file...
Notice U/S 271(1)(c) Of IT Act Must Specify Whether Penalty Is Against 'Concealment' Of Income Or Furnishing 'Incorrect' Income: J&K High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has made it clear that notice to an assessee proposing imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to clearly specify whether assessee is accused of 'concealing' his income or furnishing 'incorrect' income particulars. Section 271(1)(c) stipulates that penalty proceedings can be initiated provided the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of the income or furnished the...