Recovery Officer Can't Attach Taxpayer's Overdraft Account With Banks By Exercising Power U/s 226(3): Himachal Pradesh HC Quashes Attachment Order

Observing Cash Credit account or overdraft is capable of being attached u/s 226(3) of Income tax Act, the Himachal Pradesh High Court turned down the decision of Tax recovery officer in passing the order of attachment of Cash Credit Account. Explaining the relationship between debtor & creditor, the High Court clarified that bank does not become a debtor to its customers and cannot hold money for account of its customers merely because it has provided a facility of overdraft to...

[Tax Not Paid/ Short Tax] 'Summary Of Show Cause Notice' In GST DRC-01 Not A Substitute For SCN U/S 73(1) CGST Act: Gauhati HC

The Gauhati High Court has held that Summary of Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 along with an attachment of the 'determination of tax' does not constitute a valid Show Cause Notice (SCN) under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. “The Summary of the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 is not a substitute to the Show Cause Notice to be issued in terms with Section 73(1) of the Central Act as well as the State Act. Irrespective of issuance of the Summary of...

District Bar Associations Election: Delhi High Court Exempts Taxation Bar Association Members From Court Appearance Requirement

The Delhi High Court exempted members of Taxation Bar Association from the Court appearance requirement. The Bench, consists of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Yashwant Varma, noted that, in light of the judgment in Lalit Sharma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. [W.P.(C) 10363/2021], dated 19th March 2024, a majority of the advocate members of the Delhi Tax Bar Association, despite active practice, have now become ineligible to contest, vote, or participate in...

Self-Assessment U/S 143(1) Income Tax Act Doesn't Qualify As Assessment By AO, No Bar On Reopening Assessment U/S 147: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that merely because an assessee made self-assessment under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, is not reason to preclude reassessment proceedings initiated by the Department. “The assessment of tax under Section 143(1) of the Act is a self-assessment and in a strict sense cannot be stated as assessment framed by the AO,” observed a bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Swarana Kanta Sharma. Section 143(1) relates to self-assessment of chargeable...

Retailer Can't Be Presumed To Fall Under 'Exceptions' From GST Registration Without Supporting Materials Placed On Record: Gauhati HC

The Gauhati High Court has held that a retailer cannot be presumed to fall within the exception from registration under the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, without any materials placed on record to support the exemption. A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed that though certain entities are given exemption under the Act, there cannot be any presumption in that regard, “more so when the very purpose of the Act of 2017 is to bring all business under the purview of the...

Infrastructure Companies laying Roads On BOT Basis Are Not Owners, Can't Claim Depreciation On Toll Roads: Mumbai ITAT

Emphasizing that ownership is a sine qua non for availing depreciation, and roads/ bridges are public properties, the Mumbai ITAT held that an infrastructural development company which has laid down roads cannot claim depreciation over same. The Division Bench comprising Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member) and Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) denied depreciation claim on toll road to a company engaged in the business of infrastructure development (assessee), who, in execution of...

No Reopening Is Permitted U/s 148 On Issues Which Were Answered In Favour Of Taxpayer During Course Of Revision U/s 263: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court held that once the PCIT in the revisionary proceeding u/s 263, had decided in favour of assessee after having considered its reply, then AO had no authority to reassess and reopen the assessment u/s 148. The High Court held so, after finding that the reasons for issuing notice u/s 148A(b) were exactly similar to the reasons on which the PCIT had invoked Section 263. Section 263 of Income tax Act is a proactive step taken by tax authority to rectify potential...

Non-Payment Of Tax To Govt For 3 Months After Due Date Not Ground To Cancel GST Registration: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that non-payment of dues in the form of tax, interest or penalty, by a registered entity to the account of Central/State Government beyond a period of three months after due date, is not a ground to cancel its registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act.A bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Sachin Datta took note of Section 29 of CGST Act which prescribes for cancellation of a tax payer's GST registration and observed,“The only reason set out...

Deadline To File Income Tax Audit Report For FY 2023-24 Extended Till October 7

The income tax department has extended the date for filing the audit report for 2023-24 by 7 days till October 7. The audit report must be filed online via the e-filing ITR portal.A circular issued by CBDT in this regard states,"On consideration of difficulties faced by the taxpayers and other stakeholders in electronic filing of various reports of audit under the provisions of the Income-tax Act,1961 (Act), the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), in exercise of its powers under Section 119...

Rule 86A Of CGST Rules 2017 Does Not Imposes Any Burden To Be Discharged By Taxpayer To Be Entitled To Input Tax Credit: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court held that the amount of debit to be disallowed from the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) should not be more than the amount of the Input tax credit (ITC), which is believed to have been fraudulently availed by taxpayer.At the same time, the High Court clarified that Rule 86A of CGST Rules 2017 is an emergent measure for protection of revenue by temporarily not allowing debit of available ITC in the ECL, which the Commissioner or an officer authorized by him has reasons to...

Capital Asset Financed By Foreign Currency Loan Can Be Capitalized U/s 43A If Such Asset Was Imported From Abroad: Bombay High Court

While explaining that Section 43A is a non-obstante provision, which positively imposes an obligation notwithstanding anything contained in the Income tax Act, the Bombay High Court held that losses due to exchange rate changes on a foreign currency loan taken for import of a capital asset must not be treated as revenue expenditure.Section 43A of Income tax Act requires companies to capitalize expenses that are required to be capitalized as per the accounting standard, so that companies cannot...

Industrial Benefit Scheme Extended By State Government Can't Be Withdrawn By Electricity Department On Basis Of Audit Objection: Patna High Court

Referring to the decision of Shanta Mani Hand Made Paper Industries Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors [CWJC No. 2941 of 2010], the Patna High Court reiterated that supplementary bills which are punitive in nature, cannot be raised upon taxpayer and benefit granted by State government cannot be withdrawn based on mere audit objection.The High Court reiterated so after finding that the subsidy granted to the petitioner by the State government in the form of Industrial Incentive policy was withdrawn...