Income Tax Act | 'Fee For Technical Services' Means Transfer Of 'Specialised'/ 'Distinctive' Knowledge Or Skill By Service Provider: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that Fee for Technical Services (FTS) as contained under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is concerned with the transfer of 'distinctive', 'specialized' knowledge, skill, expertise and know-how by a service provider.A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar thus observed that assistance provided by the assessee-respondent with respect to rules and regulations for clearance of customs frontiers is not 'specialised...

High Court Within Whose Jurisdiction AO Passes Assessment Order Has Jurisdiction To Entertain Appeal U/S 260A Income Tax Act: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that only such High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer passing an impugned assessment order is situated would have the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.The Section makes provision for an appeal to the High Court from an order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal.In the case at hand, the original assessment order was passed by the AO in Amritsar, making an addition of ₹4,37,046/- to the...

AO Duty Bound To Dispose Of Assessee's Written Objections To Proposed Re-Assessment By Passing Speaking Order: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court recently upheld an ITAT order deleting the addition of over ₹4 crore made to the income of an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 in reassessment action.A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Bivas Pattanayak held that the Assessing Officer had erred in not disposing of the written objection submitted by the assessee against the reopening of the assessment.It observed, “The duty cast upon the assessing officer is to decide the written objections...

Not An Enabling Provision, Proscribes Reassessment Action Beyond Limitation: Delhi HC Explains Timelines U/S 149 Of Income Tax Act

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, which prescribes a limitation period for initiating reassessment against an assessee, is not an enabling provision but rather a proscription on the Assessing Officer's powers.A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed,“The opening sentence of Section 149(1) of the Act clearly indicates that the time limit as prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act is a hard stop....

Superannuation Fund | Limit On Deduction Of Employer's Contribution Applies To Initial/ Annual Contribution, Not Additional Payments: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that the limit prescribed under Section 36(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act 1961, on deductions that an employer can seek for contributions made towards superannuation funds, applies only at the stage of setting up the fund or making ordinary annual payments.A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said any contribution made additionally in discharge of an overarching obligation would not be rendered as a disallowable expense.It thus...

What Is The Time Period Surviving U/S 149 Of Income Tax Act For Issuing Reassessment Notices: Delhi High Court Explains

The Delhi High Court has interpreted the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal to elucidate the time period surviving under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for issuing reassessment notices.A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar concluded that the period between 20 March 2020 to 30 June 2021 would be excluded from limitation, in view of Section 3(1) of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act,...

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...