Tax
Once Goods Are Verified And Found To Be Correct In MOV-04, Department Can't Be Permitted To Change Stand Later: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that when the authority on verification has mentioned the details of the goods found and verified the correctness of the invoices and the goods in transit, it cannot be permitted to change the stand later and say that the goods were not in accordance with the invoice. Justice Piyush Agrawal held “Once on the verification report i.e. MOV-04, the items are fed by the officer concerned, after due verification, the authorities cannot be permitted to...
Lawyers Running Individual Practice Exempt From Levy Of GST, Service Tax: Orissa High Court
The Orissa High Court has reminded the GST and Service tax authorities not to harass practicing lawyers by issuing them notices for levy of GST or service tax.A Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice BP Routray thus quashed the notices issued to a Bhubaneswar based lawyer demanding service tax of Rs.2,14,600/- and penalty of Rs.2,34,600/- plus interest.It observed, “in view of the admitted fact that the Petitioner is a practicing lawyer…the Department the Petitioner is exempted from levy of...
SCN Uploaded On 'Additional Notices' Tab Of GST Portal Not Proper: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that uploading of show cause notice by the GST department under the 'additional notices' tab on its portal is not proper as the assessee may miss it.The decision is a contrast to a coordinate bench decision rendered in July last year, holding that uploading of notices under the heading 'additional notices' amounts to sufficient service.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held,“the notice if uploaded on the additional...
Central Excise Tariff Act | Test Reports Justifying Reclassification Must Be Disclosed to Manufacturer : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled that when a test report forms the basis for reclassification of the petrochemical products, necessitating a higher duty, than the copy of such test reports ought to be furnished to the manufacturer-taxpayer. The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the ₹2.15 crore central excise duty demand against M/s Oswal Petrochemicals Ltd., holding that the revenue authorities had violated principles of natural justice by failing to share key evidence—such as...
ITAT Rejects Revenue's Appeal Seeking To Make ₹63.21 Billion Addition To DLF's Income For AY 2017-18
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi has dismissed an appeal preferred by the Revenue against an order of the National Faceless Centre (CIT(A)), deleting aggregate ₹63,02,13,86,035 addition made to income of real estate giant DLF Limited on various counts, for the Assessment Year 2017-18.In its 82-page judgement, the Tribunal also disposed of the company's appeal against confirmation of addition made by CIT(A) on account of unverified purchase transactions, by remitting the issue to...
Routing Of Funds Through Tax Havens Not Disclosed During Original Proceedings: Bombay HC Confirms Reassessment
Finding that the Petitioner had failed to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment of tax, the Bombay High Court ruled that the circuitous movement of funds through various companies located in tax havens had not been disclosed in the course of the original proceedings.The High Court therefore confirmed the reopening proceedings initiated against the petitioner.A division bench of Justice Jitendra Jain and Justice M.S Sonak observed that “if based on subsequent...
Tax Weekly Round-Up: April 21 - April 27, 2025
HIGH COURTSBombay HCAmalgamated Company Can Adjust Written Down Assets Of Constituent Companies & Claim Depreciation Without Central Govt Approval: Bombay HCCase Title: Technova Imaging Systems Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income TaxCase Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 405 OF 2003The Bombay High Court stated that amalgamated company can adjust written down of assets of amalgamating companies and claim depreciation without central government's approval. The Division Bench of Chief Justice...
JCIT Not Empowered To Issue Sanction For Reassessment Under Proviso To S.151(1) Of Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that sanction for initiation of reassessment action against an assessee under the proviso to Section 151(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, cannot be issued by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax.Section 151(1) contemplates issuance of sanction by JCIT for initiating reassessment action under Section 148 against an assessee who has already undergone scrutiny assessment.The proviso to Section 151(1) however adds that if the reassessment action is sought to be initiated...
Order U/S 75(6) Of GST Act Must Be Self-Contained, Mere References To SCNs Is Not Sufficient: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that order under Section 75(6) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 must be self-contained and mere reference to previous show cause notices is not sufficient. Section 75 of the GST Act is a general provision relating to determination of tax. Section 75(6) of the GST Act provides that “the proper officer, in his order, shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision.” Petitioner argued that notice under Section 61 (Scrutiny of...
Income Escapement | Value Determined At S.148A(d) Stage Relevant To Determine Threshold U/S 149 Of Income Tax Act: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has held that when determining whether a reassessment action meets the ₹50 lakh threshold prescribed under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act 1961, the value of income that allegedly escaped assessment as determined by the Assessing Officer at Section 148A(d) stage is relevant.A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia clarified that the value alleged by the AO at Section 148A(b) stage, i.e. before considering the Assessee's stand, is not relevant for the...
Suppression Or Wilful Concealment Not Attributable To Assessee When Departmental Authorities Differ On Taxability Of Services: CESTAT
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that suppression or wilful concealment not attributable when the departmental authorities have differed themselves on the taxability of the services. The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “When the two departmental authorities have differed themselves on the taxability of the services under a specific category, no suppression or wilful concealment...
Provisions Of Section 26E SARFAESI Act & Section 34 RDB Act Prevails Over Section 24 Of TNGST Act: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court stated that provisions of Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act and Section 34 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act would prevail over the provisions of Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The Division Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and G. Arul Murugan observed that “in the juxtaposition of Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act with Section 34 of the RDB Act, it is Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act that will provide the necessary impetus for determining...