IT Appellate Authority Must Pass Speaking Order, Hear AO Before Admitting Fresh Evidence: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has recently held that an appellate authority under the Income Tax law cannot allow a taxpayer to file fresh evidence at the appeal stage without first passing a reasoned order and giving the tax officer a fair chance to respond. A bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar said, “We are also of the clear view that the opportunity to lead additional evidence at the appellate stage could not be granted by the First Appellate Authority...

Revised IT Return Permissible Only For Bona Fide Discovery Of Omission Or Mistake: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court on 9 April, held that a taxpayer can file a revised return under Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 only when it discovers a bona fide omission or wrong statement in the original return filed under Section 139(1). The provision cannot be used to make deliberate or afterthought changes. The Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Pranav Trivedi emphasised that a valid revised return replaces the original return for all purposes under the Act, but only when it reflects...

Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Move For Income Tax Reassessment In Land Sale, Bars Differing Stand On Evidence

The Gujarat High Court has set aside a tax reassessment notice issued in a land sale case, holding that the Income Tax Department cannot rely on the same evidence to take opposite positions against the buyer and the seller.The Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi was dealing with a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2020–21.The case arose from a search conducted under Section 132 of the Income...

Gujarat High Court Quashes Move To Reopen Income Tax Assessment Over Vague Third-Party Material

The Gujarat High Court has quashed reassessment notices against a taxpayer, ruling that the Income Tax Department cannot reopen completed assessments based on vague third-party documents that have no clear link to the person concerned.The ruling was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice A. S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi in a batch of petitions led by Bhavnaben Darshanbhai Patel, challenging reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2020–21.The case arose after a search under...

Writ Maintainable After Income Tax Assessment If Order Is Ex Facie Without Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable even after completion of assessment proceedings, where the impugned action is ex facie without jurisdiction.A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar observed that “simply because the proceedings have culminated into an assessment order, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer the agony of an order which is without jurisdiction on the face of it, until the appellate authority does a formal act of...

No Bad Debt Deduction From Taxable Income Without Actual Write-Off: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has held that a taxpayer cannot claim a bad debt deduction merely by declaring a debt as irrecoverable and must comply with statutory conditions requiring an actual write-off in its books. A Division Bench of Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice Shamim Ahmed observed, “Merely stating that a bad and doubtful debt is an irrecoverable is not sufficient to claim deduction. Appropriate treatment in the accounts, together with compliance of the conditions in sections 36(1)(vii),...

Summary Processing Cannot Decide Debatable ESI, EPF Claims: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court on 16 April held that the Income Tax Department cannot invoke summary processing powers under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to disallow claims involving debatable legal issues, including employee contributions towards ESI and EPF, as such adjustments fall outside the limited scope of prima facie scrutiny.A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Sachin Singh Rajput allowed the appeal filed by Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers Pvt Ltd...

No Penalty Where Claim Is Based On Binding High Court Law Later Reversed By Top Court: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on 30 March held that if a taxpayer made a deduction claim based on a binding High Court judgment, penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act cannot be imposed subsequently, merely because the claim was later disallowed following a Supreme Court ruling.A Division Bench of Justices B. P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla held that penalty is not automatic and does not arise where a taxpayer makes a bona fide claim based on the prevailing legal position. It noted: ...

No TDS Payable On Pfizer Products' Cost-Sharing Payments To Pfizer Ltd. Without Profit Element: Bombay HC

Holding that reimbursements without any profit element do not attract TDS, the Bombay High Court has dismissed an income tax appeal filed by the Revenue against Pfizer Products India Pvt. Ltd. over cross-charges of Rs.14,51,77,000 paid to its sister concern-Pfizer Ltd.A Division Bench of Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice S. M. Modak held, "The cross-charge paid by the Assessee-Respondent in terms of the cost-sharing agreement between the Assessee and M/s. Pfizer Ltd, did not have any...

Suspicion, Human Probabilities Insufficient For Tax Additions Without Evidence: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court on 6 March held that additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be sustained merely on suspicion or the test of human probabilities and must rest on concrete evidence. A Division Bench of Justices Sam Koshy and Suddala Chalapathi Rao dismissed the Revenue's appeals and upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)'s decision to remand the issue of Rs. 182 crore share premium received by Bharathi Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd. for fresh examination. It...

Bombay High Court Admits Limited 115JB Questions In ACC Case, Holds Settled Issues Not Appealable

The Bombay High Court on 16 March partly admitted an appeal filed by the Department against ACC Limited, holding that several issues raised by the Revenue were already covered by binding precedents and therefore did not give rise to any substantial question of law. A Bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, however, admitted the appeal on four questions concerning computation of book profits under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. They held: “The appeal is...

Developer Undertaking Risk And Execution Qualifies For Section 80-IA Deduction: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on 11 March held that a taxpayer-company undertaking substantial development work, investment risk and technical execution cannot be treated as a mere works contractor and is entitled to deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Income Tax Act for profits from infrastructure projects. A Bench comprising Justices M. S. Karnik and S. M. Modak dismissed the Revenue's appeals against Patel Engineering Ltd., holding that the latter acted as a “developer” of infrastructure...