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...

Non-Disposal Of Application For Registration U/S 12AA Of IT Act Within 6 Months Doesn't Result In "Deemed Registration”: Bombay High Court

Referring to decision of CIT vs. Harshit Foundation Sehmalpur, the Bombay High Court reiterated that Sec 12AA(2) does not make any provision, to the effect that non-deciding of the registration application u/s 12AA(2) within a period of six months, brought about a deemed registration. The Division Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla clarified that “non-disposal of application for registration by granting or refusing registration, before the expiry of...

P&H HC Nixes Asst Commissioner's Order For Ignoring Direction To Hear Case On Merits, Calls For Strict Action Against Insubordination In CGST Hierarchy

The Punjab and Haryana High Court overturned an Assistant Commissioner's order for dismissing an application as time-barred, noting he overstepped his authority despite the Joint Commissioner's directive to consider it on merits. The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma observed that “Assistant Commissioner, a subordinate officer has refused to examine the case on merits and again dismissed the application as time barred. Such an approach is the result of the virtual failure of...

Card Issuing Bank Not Liable To Pay Service Tax On Interchange Fee When It Is Already Paid On MDR : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently ruled that a card issuing bank is not liable to separately pay service tax on the interchange fee when the said tax already stands paid on the Merchant Discount Rate (MDR). The Three Judge Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that “the entire amount of the service tax payable on the MDR has been paid to the Government and there is no loss of revenue”. (Para 9) The Bench observed so, while answering in...

S.107(4) CGST Act | Appellate Authority Can't Condone Delay Beyond 30 Days In Filing Appeal But HC May Consider Exceptional Cases: J&K High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the Appellate Authority under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/ J&K Goods and Services Tax Act cannot condone the delay in filing appeal beyond 30 days. Section 107(1) prescribes a three months limitation period for presenting appeals. Section 107(4) of the Act confines the appellate authority's power to condone the delay to upto 30 days. However, a division bench of Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Rajesh Sekhri further ...

Bombay HC Holds 'Income From Leasing Of Property' As 'Income From Business', Says Deciding Factor Is Not Ownership But Nature Of Activity

The Bombay High Court held that assessee had correctly accounted income from leasing out of properties under the head 'income from profits & gains of businesses', and not as 'income from house property'. The High Held so after finding that income of assessee is derived from letting out of the properties, which in fact, is the principal business of the assessee as seen from its main objectives contained in its memorandum of association. The Division Bench of Justice G. S....

Section 67 CGST Act | Whether Cash Can Be Seized During GST Search ? Supreme Court To Consider

Taking into account conflicting views of the Delhi High Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Supreme Court is set to consider the issue as to whether authorities can seize "cash" under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.The development comes as a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta recently issued notice on a petition filed by tax authorities assailing Delhi High Court's direction for refund of seized cash to the respondents.To briefly state facts of...

Allahabad High Court Grants Interim Relief On Plea Challenging Order U/S 129 UPGST Act Claiming Asst Commissioner Was Not 'Proper Officer'

Recently, the Allahabad High Court has granted interim relief in a writ petition challenging the order under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.Petitioner was transporting Arecanuts, when the shipment was intercepted by the Mobile Squad. Due to alleged reuse of bill and e-way bills, physical verification of the goods was ordered. Though no discrepancies were found upon physical verification, an order of detention of goods was passed. Subsequently, the Assistant...

S.245 IT Act | TDS Deducted By Employer Can't Be Adjusted Against Assessee's Future Refund: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently granted relief to Satwant Singh Sanghera, a pilot formerly employed with the now collapsed Kingfisher Airlines, against tax demand of over Rs 11 lakh.Singh contended that he had duly filed his income tax returns for the Assessment Years in question and the company had deducted TDS from his salary. The same was reflected in Form 16A issued by the company.He contended that the amount was not deposited with the government due to the default of the company and he is not...

S.10(23G) IT Act | Capital Invested To Purchase Shares Of 'Infrastructure Facility' Before June 1998 Can't Be Included In Total Income: Telangana HC

The Telangana High Court has held that the capital expenditure made prior to June 1998, for purchasing shares in any 'infrastructure facility', cannot be included in an assessee's total income. A division bench of Justices Sujoy Paul and Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao reasoned, “The capital expenditure for purchasing shares falls under the category of infrastructure facilities and shall not be included in total income. This is because merely purchasing shares does not contribute to the...

Assessee Entitled To Charge Depreciation On Purchase Of Goodwill: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that goodwill is not 'income' but rather 'expenditure' for acquisition of assets and therefore, an assessee is entitled to charge depreciation on the amount spent towards it.A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Swarana Kanta Sharma cited Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata v. Smifs Securities Ltd. (2012) whereby the Supreme Court had held that goodwill could be considered as an intangible asset eligible for depreciation.In the case at hand, the...