Tax
Revisional Authority U/S 264 Of Income Tax Act Can Only Review Existing Orders, Cannot Issue Directions To Assessing Authority: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court stated that the powers of revisional authority under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act is confined to reviewing existing orders, and the authority cannot issue directions to the assessing authority. Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 empowers the Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner, Principal Commissioner, or Commissioner to revise certain orders. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. agreed with the department that powers conferred upon the revisional...
Department Serving Notice Via WhatsApp Post-COVID Is Not Valid U/S 169 CGST Act: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court stated that notice via WhatsApp was permitted only during COVID-19 pandemic and is not a valid mode of service under Section 169 CGST Act. Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, outlines various methods for serving notices, orders, or communications under the GST law. Justices Nitin Jamdar and Basant Balaji was addressing the case where the department had served the detention and confiscation order to the assessee through...
Kerala High Court Upholds Triple Tax On Unauthorised Construction Due To Lack Of Proof Of Deemed Permit
The Kerala High Court has upheld triple tax on unauthorised construction due to lack of proof of deemed permit. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “in the absence of any documents indicating the submission of application for permit and inaction on the part of the Panchayat in considering the said application, the contention of the assessee as to the deemed permit cannot be accepted.” Those are the basic documents which are required to establish the case of the assessee and in...
Appeal On Service Classification Under 'Insurance Auxiliary Service' Not Maintainable Before High Court: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court stated that an appeal on service classification under 'insurance auxiliary service' not maintainable before the High Court. Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) was addressing the appeal filed by the department/appellant under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 challenging the order passed by the Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench,...
Gram Panchayat Cannot Levy Property Tax On Industrial Establishment Within Notified Industrial Areas: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Gram Panchayat cannot levy or collect property taxes in respect of Industrial establishments located within areas notified by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB). Mere execution of a lease-cum-sale agreement or any administrative communication cannot vest power in the Gram Panchayat to levy tax in the absence of express delegation or statutory backing.Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while allowing a batch of petitions and...
Reward Schemes Must Be Fairly Implemented: Bombay High Court Directs Dept To Pay Informer For Assisting In Tax Recovery
The Bombay High Court has directed the department to pay informer for assisting in tax evasion recovery. Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “If the Government has formulated a reward scheme, it must be implemented fairly and transparently. Informers who take risks and invest time must not be made to run from pillar to post to secure what may be due and payable. There must be no unreasonable delay in paying the determined reward amounts, and the practice of raising...
No Leniency In Import/Export Lapses; Bombay High Court Upholds Licence Cancellation Of Courier Agency For Clearing Imports Without Authorisation
The Bombay High Court has upheld the licence cancellation of a courier agency for clearing imports without authorisation by stating that any such exercise of discretion of leniency will only encourage persons to commit the offence by taking recourse to the services of the courier agencies. Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “the petitioner has been negligent in carrying out its obligation under the 1998 Regulations. These obligations are cast on the Authorised Courier...
Benefits To Registered Retail Traders Under MSMED Act Limited To Priority Sector Lending, Not Eligible For QCO Exemption: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court held that the benefits to registered retail traders under MSMED Act, 2006 (Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006) limited to priority sector lending only, and are not eligible for QCO [Plywood and Wooden flush door shutters (Quality Control) Order, 2024] exemption. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “the entire category of wholesale and retail trades were excluded completely from the purview of MSMED Act and later, they were re-included...
Tax Weekly Round-Up: June 30 - July 06, 2025
HIGH COURTSBombay HCIncome Tax | Sales Tax Incentive Under Govt Scheme For Industrial Promotion Is Capital Receipt, Not Taxable: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Bajaj Auto Limited v. Dy. Commissioner of Income TaxCase Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.505 OF 2003The Bombay High Court has stated that sales tax incentive under a government scheme for industrial promotion is a capital receipt, not taxable.Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne were addressing the issue of whether an...
[Income Tax Act] Reassessment Beyond 4 Years Requires Specific Non-Disclosure By Assessee, Not Mere Allegations: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court stated that reassessment under Section 147 Income Tax Act beyond 4 years requires specific non-disclosure by assessee, not mere bald allegations. Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides for the reopening of assessment proceedings. This section gives discretion to the Assessing Officer (AO) to reopen the assessment proceedings when he/she has reason to believe that some of the income has escaped assessment. Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P....
Assessing Authority Not Bound By Appellate Tribunal's Observations In De Novo Assessment: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has stated that the assessing authority is not bound by the appellate tribunal's observations in a De Novo assessment. Justices Anita Sumanth and N. Senthilkumar opined that while concluding the assessment de novo, the assessing authority is not bound by the observations made by the first appellate authority. In this case, the Commercial Taxes Department has filed the appeal challenging the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to the...
Income Tax | Serving SCN On Old Email After Updation Is Invalid, Despite Earlier Acknowledgement: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court stated that reply to one SCN on old email cannot justify non-service of subsequent notice on updated email. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “one of the notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act was indeed served to the assessee in the old email ID, which was after updating the email ID. The assessee also submitted a response to the said notice as well. However, that by itself cannot be a reason to reject the contentions put forward by the...