Assessee Can Confine Settlement Under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act To Disputes Which Were Subject Matter Of Its Appeal: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, an Assessee is entitled to confine the settlement of disputes which were subject matter of its appeal, and exclude the disputes which were subject matter of the Revenue's appeal for the same assessment year. It thus allowed a real estate company's plea against the certificate issued by Commissioner of Income Tax, whereby the declaration furnished by the Assessee under Section 3 of the DTVSV Act was...

Pendency Of Revenue's Appeal Regarding Classification Of Imported Goods No Ground To Insist On Provisional Assessment U/S 18 Customs Act: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of an importer who was aggrieved by insistence on provisional assessment of duty by the Customs Department, despite an order of the CESTAT with respect to classification of its imported goods. Petitioner-company is involved in providing after sales support services of telecommunication networking equipment and had imported certain goods which were alleged to be misclassified, Petitioner claimed its goods fell under Customs Tariff Heading...

Power Of DRI Officers To Issue Show-Cause Notices Under Customs Act And A 'Flux' In The Legal Position: Delhi HC Discusses

The Delhi High Court recently discussed a 'flux' in the legal position with respect to power of officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to issue show-cause notices and recover duties under the Customs Act, 1962. A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja was dealing with a batch of petitions seeking to quash the SCNs and pending adjudication proceedings arising out of the Customs Act, 1962 , the Finance Act, 1994 or the Central Goods and Services Tax,...

Court Can Quash SCNs And Proceedings Under GST Act, Customs Act Or Finance Act On Ground Of Inordinate Delay In Adjudication: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Show Cause Notices and adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 , the Finance Act, 1994 or the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 cannot be kept pending for years. In its 177-page judgment, a division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja observed, “Matters which have the potential of casting financial liabilities or penal consequences cannot be kept pending for years and decades together. A statute enabling an...

[IT Act] Section 80IB Doesn't Mandate Setting Off Losses Of One Eligible Unit Against Profits Of Another Eligible Unit: Mumbai ITAT

The Mumbai ITAT recently clarified that an industrial undertaking was not required to set off the losses incurred by it in one eligible unit against the profits earned from another eligible unit for the purpose of calculating deduction u/s 80-IB.As per Section 80-I of Income tax Act, 1961, where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking or a ship or the business of a hotel or the business of repairs to ocean-going vessels or other...

Genuine Short-Term Capital Loss From Sale Of Shares Can't Be Prevented From Being Set Off Against Long-Term Capital Gain: Mumbai ITAT

The Mumbai ITAT held that a taxpayer is not prevented from arranging her affairs within the legal framework and through legitimate means to reduce his tax liability.While pointing that the Income Tax Statute does not require the assessee to pay more tax, the Division Bench of Saktijit Dey (Vice President) and Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member) observed that “short-term capital loss derived by assessee from sale of shares cannot be prevented from being set off against the long-term capital gain by...

[GST] Assesee Cannot File For Requisite Documents Once Plea Is Accepted And Notice Is Issued: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that an assessee cannot file for the supply of requisite documents after the adjudicating body has accepted the plea placed by them and issued notice pursuant to it. The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that the same would be impermissible, especially in a case where statutory appeal was available to the filing party. Case Background Petitioner was issued a show cause notice, whereby he was informed of discrepancies...

CGST Rules Prescribing Time-Bound Submission Of Declaration Under TRAN-1 To Claim Transitional Credit Not Directory But Mandatory: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court has held that Rules prescribing the 'time and manner' for claiming transitional credit, in addition to the statutory procedure provided under Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, are mandatory in nature. A division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman thus held that prescriptions under Section 117 of CGST Rules are mandatory in nature, and non-compliance thereof would lead to rejection of a...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: December 02 - December 08, 2024

SUPREME COURT Subsequent Purchaser Of Imported Vehicle Cannot Be Asked To Pay Customs Duty; Liability On Importer : Supreme Court Case Title: NALIN CHOKSEY VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KOCHI The Supreme Court ruled that the 'subsequent purchaser' of an imported motor car cannot be called an 'importer' to attract the liability under the Customs Act, 1962 to pay customs duty on the import of the vehicle. The bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar...

Summary Of SCN In GST DRC-01 Cannot Substitute Requirement For Issuance Of SCN U/S 73(1) Of CSGT Act: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court stated that issuance of summary of Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 cannot substitute requirement for issuance of show cause notice under section 73(1) of CSGT Act. The Bench of Justice Manish Choudhury observed that “…….the issuance of the Summary of the Show Cause Notice, Summary of the Statement and Summary of the Order do not dispense with the requirement of issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice and Statement as well as passing of the Order as per the...

Appeal Cannot Be Dismissed As Not Maintainable On Account Of Non-Payment Of Requisite Fee: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court stated that appeal cannot be dismissed as not maintainable on account of non-payment of requisite fee. The Division Bench consisting of Justices Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Sanjay Vashisth was considering a case where the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as not maintainable on the ground that the assessee/petitioner had failed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as fee for hearing the appeal while the assessee was required to deposit a total sum of Rs. 20,000/-...

[Income Tax Act] Placing Funds In One Account Before Transferring It To Another Does Not Attract S. 69A: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the finding of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that when an agreement between parties specifies a direct transfer of money, doing so indirectly by keeping the funds in a distinct account before sending them to the final account, does not place the money under the definition of 'unexplained money' as per Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. “The CIT(A) and the Tribunal were justified in coming to the...