Suo Moto Disallowance Made By Assessee Under Bonafide Belief Of Tax Liability Can Be Rectified U/S 264 Of Income Tax Act Without Amending ITR: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that an application for revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be preferred by an assessee who makes suo motu disallowance in its Return of Income (RoI/ ITR), under a bonafide yet mistaken belief that the same was liable to be offered for taxation.A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar added that the assessee cannot be denied relief merely on the ground that the application was moved without amending the...

Date Of Assessment Order Recommending Penalty For Accepting Cash Above ₹2 Lakh Not Relevant For Determining Limitation U/S 275 Of Income Tax Act: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that the date of the assessment order, wherein an Assessing Officer recommended separate penalty proceedings against the assessee under Section 271DA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for accepting more than ₹2 lakh in cash, is not relevant for determining the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c).Section 275(1)(c) prescribes the period of limitation within which penalty proceedings are to be completed.A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice...

Fees Paid By Law Firm Remfry & Sagar To Use Name & Goodwill Of Founder Is Business Expense, Deductible U/S 37 Of Income Tax Act: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that the fees paid by IPR law firm Remfry & Sagar to acquire the goodwill vested in a company run by the family members of its deceased founder, is a business expense deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja observed, “the primary, nay, sole purpose for incurring expenditure towards license fee was to use the words “Remfry & Sagar” and derive benefit of the goodwill attached to it. The...

Merely Paying Penalty For Wilful Delay In Filing Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate Assessee From Being Prosecuted: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash prosecution initiated by the Income Tax Department against an assessee who had willfully failed to submit his income tax returns in time for the Assessment Years 2012- 13 to 2015-16 and thereby committed the alleged offence.A single judge, Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed the petitions filed by Rajkumar Agarwal. It said, “Delay in filing of the income tax returns would not only result in payment of penalty, but it also results in prosecution as...

Tax Annual Digest 2024: Part III

Chewing Tobacco Packed In High-Density Polyethylene Bags Are 'Wholesale Package'; Cannot Be Taxed As Retail Product Under Excise Act : Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court recently held that pouches of chewing tobacco packed in High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) bags would be considered a 'wholesale package' and could not be considered for imposing excise duty as per the provisions relating to retail sale price in the Central Excise Act, 1944. The bench of Justices AS Oka and Pankaj Mithal upheld the...

Co-Owner Of Property Not Receiving Income From It Not Liable To Pay Tax On Income From Such Property: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that where a property is held jointly but only one co-owner reaps the benefit of income from such property, the other co-owner cannot be held liable to pay tax merely by virtue of co-ownership.A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “the [Income Tax] Act fails to raise any presumption in law, of income necessarily arising or being liable to be assessed in the hands of an individual merely because it be a signatory to an...

Money In Bank Account Is 'Property', Liable For Provisional Attachment U/S 281B Of Income Tax Act: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court held that cash in bank account is a 'property' liable for provisional attachment under section 281B of the Income Tax Act. The Division Bench of Justices Sathish Ninan and Shoba Annamma Eapen observed that “mere fact that Bank account is not explicitly provided under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, unlike the GST Act, 2017 which specifically mentions the same, cannot lead to the conclusion that Bank account is not liable to be attached under Section 281 B of...

Time Spent To Defend Reassessment Notice Issued Without Following Procedure Doesn't Extend Limitation For Revenue When Issuing Fresh Notice: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that if the Revenue issues a reassessment notice to an assessee under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without following due procedure, it cannot later issue fresh reassessment notice beyond the prescribed period, claiming that time spent on earlier litigation is to be excluded for the purposes of computing limitation.A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “Notice issued under Section 148 of the Act in...

Proceedings Initiated Against Income Tax Assessee After His Death Cannot Be Continued Against Legal Representative: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has said proceedings initiated against an Income Tax Assessee by issuing notice after his demise cannot be continued against his/her legal representative.A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice G Basavaraja said, “Had the proceedings been initiated against the Assessee during his lifetime, they could have continued against the legal representatives of the deceased Assessee.” The bench held thus while dismissing an appeal filed by the Income Tax officer...

[Income Tax] Assessing Officer Not Only An Adjudicator But Also An Investigator, Cannot Remain Oblivious To Claim Without Enquiry: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court stated that the Income Tax Commissioner can exercise Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “The role of the assessing officer under the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not only that of an adjudicator but also of an investigator and he cannot remain oblivious in the face of a claim without any enquiry.” Under Section 263 of The Income-tax Act, 1961,...

Whether Entity Is 'Permanent Establishment' Is A Fact-Specific Issue, Must Be Examined Separately For Different Tax Periods: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that whether an entity is a Permanent Establishment (PE) of a foreign company or not is a “fact-specific” issue which must be examined separately for different tax periods.A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed,“The position of a PE being a facts-specific issue and thus liable to be examined against the backdrop of what obtained in a particular tax period…”Reliance was placed on a Commentary of the Organization for...

Delhi High Court Distinguishes From SC's Sky Light Judgment, Declines Assessment Issued In Wrong Name After Entity's Merger

The Delhi High Court on Friday declined the Income Tax Department's appeal to treat as 'curable', the error committed in naming the relevant entity while issuing reassessment notices.A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma refused to grant the benefit which the Supreme Court had given to the Department in Sky Light Hospitality LLP v. Assistant commissioner of Income-tax (2018). It observed,“It was the conduct of the assessee in Sky Light which had convinced the Supreme...