This weekly round-up analytically summarises the key stories related to the Supreme Court and High Court reported at Taxscan.in during the previous week from March 12 to March 19, 2023.
The Sikkim High Court’s decision to dismiss the writ applicants’ applications on the grounds that it lacks authority to do so was overturned by the Supreme Court, which was presided over by S. Ravindra Bhatt and Justice Dipankar Datta.
The Sikkim High Court’s decision to dismiss the writ applicants’ applications on the grounds that it lacks authority to do so was overturned by the Supreme Court, which was presided over by S. Ravindra Bhatt and Justice Dipankar Datta.
The Input Tax Credit Claim was rejected by the Tribunal and the Karnataka High Court (HC) at the Supreme Court of India, which was presided over by Judge M.R. Shah. The Assessing Officer’s decisions to withhold the ITC to the concerned purchasing dealers, which the First Appellate Authority affirmed, are also thus reversed.
A Division Bench of Bombay High Court has quashed the reassessment proceedings against Jetair. The impugned order was set aside observing that “ we have no hesitation in holding that the reassessment proceedings were nothing but a case of ‘change of opinion’, which does not comply with the jurisdictional foundation under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
The Calcutta High Court ( HC ) in a significant case of New India Assurance Company, ordered to calculate compensation for accident claims on a Gross salary after deducting Professional tax.
The Madras High Court directed to accept Personal Bond in lieu of Bank Guarantee as condition for stay of assessment order in relation to payment of Value Added Tax (VAT).
The Orissa High Court quashed the cancellation of Last Pay Certificate and commented that “Reasons are manifestation of mind of Authority”. The Court noted that the cancellation of the Last Pay Certificate cannot be maintained and is indefensible.
The Delhi High Court has directed the revenue to refund the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed by the petitioner, Balaji Exim as the same was rejected on the ground of alleged availment of fake input tax credit by the supplier, M/s Shruti Exports.
In a significant case the Delhi High Court while observing the Goods and Service Tax (GST) registration quashed the order passed in non-consideration of the rectification application for apparent error.
In a recent case the Delhi High Court while considering the examination of aircraft usage compliance held that customs should not be bound by the Director General of Civil Aviation decision.
The Calcutta High Court ( HC ) ruled that the amount that had been taken from the petitioner as a fine must be returned and underlined that a single consignment of goods cannot be maintained in storage and be in transit at the same time.
In a recent judgement, the Kerala High Court (HC) directed to correct the interim stay order passed with the mistake of the direction to remit 20% of the tax on the disputed amount. A Single member comprising Justice T R Ravi observed that the order was issued mistakenly and needs to be corrected. The Court allowed the Review Petition and recalled the order.
The Delhi High Court (HC) has held that the restriction on utilisation of the Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Rule 86 A of the Central Goods & Services Tax Rules, 2017 cannot be more than one year. While allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the impugned show cause notice and impugned order. Further, the respondents are directed to forthwith restore the ITC appropriated under the demand created by the impugned order, to the ECL of the petitioner.
In a recent judgement, the Kerala High Court (HC) set aside an assessment order and held that deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be finalised only after analysing the form of Society.
In a major relief to Framji Dinshaw Petit Parsee Sanatorium, the petitioner, Bombay High Court quashed an assessment order after holding that there was right to claim carry forward and set off the deficit made out by the petitioner. The Coram comprising Justice Kamal Khata and Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur noted that the impugned notice is clearly a case of change of opinion and furthermore, AO’s the reason to believe must be based on some new tangible material which was not available at the time of passing the original Assessment Order.
In a recent decision the Bombay High Court observed that debits and credits can in no way lead to an inference of income escaped assessment. The Court of Justices Kamal Khata and Dhiraj Singh Thakur observed that “we find no new tangible material as contended by the respondents. Debits and Credits can in no way disclose the nature of transactions or lead to an inference of income escaped assessment. Cash deposits from various places cannot be doubted to be considered suspicious transactions. In our view, there is no prima facie case made out that income has escaped assessment.”
The Bombay High quashed assessment order passed on change of opinion thereby granting relief to Lehman Brothers Investments Pte Ltd, the petitioner. Quashing the assessment order a Bench comprising Justices Kamal Khata and Dhiraj Singh Thakur observed that “The reopening of the assessment based on a different method of computation or application of the section is nothing else but a change of opinion, which is impermissible in law.”
The Madras High Court has recently dismissed the petition filed by the assessee, Sugan Clothing against denial of TRAN-1 amendment. It was thus held that, “However, the primary responsibility for the same lies in the hands of the petitioner and as on date it is too late”, confirming the impugned order and dismissing the writ petition. On a positive note, no costs were imposed on the petitioner.
The Madras High Court ( HC ) in its recent judgement has held that the professional fee of an advocate can’t be determined after the completion of the case. The Court struck down the consequential G.O. (D) No. 182 HW and MP (HF2) Department dated 21.12.2021 and G.O. (D) No.29 Highways and Minor Ports (HV2) Department dated 01.02.2021 and allowed the writ petition with a direction to the Government to consider the fee bills raised by the petitioner in the light of the professional assistance rendered by the petitioner.
In a significant case of Lakshdeep Investments & Finance Pvt. Ltd., the Bombay High Court (HC) has quashed the reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which was issued without jurisdiction on the grounds that the only reason.
In a recent case, the Bombay High Court (HC) presided by Justices Abhay Ahuja and Nitin Jamdar directed both the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and Customs department to coordinate and decide about the correct authority to decide the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) refund.
The Gauhati High Court (HC)has directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) to expeditiously process the request for a refund of income tax deducted from the salary of the DIG (Ops) of the Border Security Force (BSF), who is a member of the scheduled tribe.
In a recent decision, the Calcutta High Court ( HC ) single bench presided over by Justice Md. Nizamuddin rejected the procedure initiated under section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and imposed a personal cost of 20,000 for twice serving the non-existent corporation with a show cause notice against the Income Tax Officer (ITO).
The Supreme Court recently held that the appointment of a member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) cannot be delayed on non-filing of Income Tax Returns.
The Delhi High Court is set to hear a bunch of petitions together on the ground of Goods and Service Tax (GST) Input Tax Credit (ITC) Denial to Buyer on ground of Default by Seller. The petitioners have challenged the vires of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
In a recent judgement, the Kerala High Court (HC) directed the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to expedite the hearing of the appeal and stay petition filed in Income Tax recovery proceedings.
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has recently dismissed the Income Tax Appeal of the revenue against M/s Century Plyboards (I) Ltd, holding that the income from transfer of listed shares held more than a year are taxable as capital gains at the desire of the assessee.
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has recently held that the Income Tax Department cannot take a view contrary to that of subsequent years in the absence of any new material that warrants the same. The Bench observed that, “In the absence of any doubt raised by the department with regard to the purchase of shares treated as investment for the preceding years and the subsequent years, a departure cannot be made by the department for the year under consideration.”
In a recent judgement, the Delhi High Court has held that the fee earned by an Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) for regulating the poultry market is exempted under section 10(26AAB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In a recent case, the Calcutta High Court (HC) upheld the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleting the addition made the upward adjustment on account of ALP of marketing intangible created by the assessee for associate enterprises in absence of evidence to prove the assessee as the distribution company.
In a recent case, the Bombay High Court (HC) rejected the pre-arrest Bail apprehending arrest in respect of the offence punishable under Section 132 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in absence of a Corporation with the investigation.
The Orissa High Court (HC) directed the Sambalpur Municipal corporation to fresh adjudication since they failed to consider the objection raised by the assessee on the enhancement of holding tax.
In a recent case, the Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice G. Satapathy bench of the Orissa High Court ruled that the application for a licence for a restaurant on shop should not be rejected solely because a Goods and Services Tax (GST) return has not yet been filed because it is unreasonable to expect that to happen without the Petitioner actually starting its business.
The assessment order of the Assessing Officer (AO) was overturned by the Orissa High Court (HC), which was presided over by a bench that included Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice G. Satapathy. Also, the bench was against the appraisal report submitted by the AO.
Bombay High Court (HC) presided by Justices Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Kamal Khatia ruled that the Income Tax Officer has to infer the conclusions from the primary facts stated by the assessee.
The Delhi High Court has recently directed the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Department to treat a petition for cancellation of GST registration obtained by misuse of the PAN and Aadhar of the petitioner as a representation to allow the petitioner to raise his claims.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
