Tax
Does Payment For Transponder Services Constitute 'Royalty' U/S 9(1)(vi) Of Income Tax Act? Bombay High Court Asks CIT To Decide
The Bombay High Court has asked the Commissioner of Income Tax to decide whether payment for transponder services constitutes 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(Vi) of Income Tax Act. The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that “the authorities have held the payment to constitute 'royalty' under the domestic law as well as under the Treaty, but by holding the said payment is towards 'royalty' under the Treaty, the revenue has relied upon the definition of...
State Tax Authorities Not Mandated To Issue DIN With Orders Or Summons: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court stated that state tax authorities not mandated to issue din with orders or summons. The Division Bench of Justices Bhargav D. Karia andP.M. Ravalobserved that “there is no mechanism of issuance of DIN on any of the communication, notice, summons, orders issued by the State Tax Authorities. In such circumstances, the contention raised on behalf of the assessee, that the DIN is not mentioned in any of the summons and the previously attachment order being without...
Omission Of Rule 96(10) Of CGST Rules Operates Prospectively But Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court stated that omission of Rule 96(10) Of CGST Rules, 2017 operates prospectively but applies to all pending proceedings. The Division Bench of Justices Bhargav D. Karia and D.N. Ray was addressing the issue where a group of petitions have challenged the vires of Rule 96(10) of the Central/State Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 as substituted by the Central Goods and Services Tax (12th Amendment) Rules, 2018 with effect from 9.10.2018. The ...
Transferor Not Liable U/S 56(2) Of Income Tax Act For Undervalued Property Sale To Spouse: ITAT
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai stated that transferor not liable under Section 56(2) Of Income Tax Act for undervalued property sale to spouse. The Bench of SS Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial Member) and Amitabh Shukla (Accountant Member) observed that “the hypothesis propounded by the Ld.AO is flawed and not supported by the statutory stipulations governing the matter. It is true that the wife of the assessee has acquired a property for an amount significantly lower than its...
Treaty Provisions Don't Override Customs Law: Bombay High Court Upholds SCN Issued For Alleged Misuse Of Import Exemptions
The Bombay High Court stated that treaty provisions don't override customs law and upheld the show cause notices issued for alleged misuse of import exemptions. The Bench consists of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that based on a treaty provision that is not transformed or incorporated into the national law or statute, the provisions of the existing Customs Act cannot be undermined, or the powers and jurisdiction of the customs authorities questioned. In this case,...
Cash Credit Account Cannot Be Treated As Property Of Account Holder Which Can Be Considered U/S 83 Of GST Act: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court stated that cash credit account cannot be treated as property of account holder which can be consider under Section 83 of GST Act. The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that the phrase 'including bank account' following the phrase, “any property” would mean a non-cash-credit bank account. Therefore, a “cash credit account” would not be governed by Section 83 of the MGST Act. In this case, the petition has been filed by the...
Assessing Officer Can't Act As Prosecutor, Judge And Executor At The Same Time: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the Assessing officer must provide the university a fair opportunity to present its case and can't take law in his own hand by acting as a Prosecutor, Judge and Executor at the same time.Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan & Justice Sushil Kukreja: “The Assessing officer took the law into his own hand and played as a Prosecutor, Judge and Executor at the same time.”Background Facts:The Petitioner, Jaypee University of Information Technology was established in...
Amount Of Subsidy Received By Assessee From RBI Cannot Be Treated As 'Interest' Chargeable U/S 4 Of Income Tax Act: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court held that the amount of subsidy received by the Assessee from RBI cannot be treated as 'interest' chargeable under Section 4 of Income Tax Act. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne stated that “the amount of subsidy received by the Assessee is not relatable in loan or advance given by the assessee to the RBI and therefore, the amount of subsidy can neither be treated as commitment charges nor discount on promissory notes on...
Tax Weekly Round-Up: June 09 - June 15, 2025
HIGH COURTSKerala HCKerala High Court Directs Customs To Dispose Of Seized Buffalo Meat Consignments Within One Month Due To PerishabilityCase Title: M/s Varsha Fresh Meat Products Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)Case Number: WP(C) NO. 19159 OF 2025The Kerala High Court has directed the customs department to dispose of seized buffalo meat consignments within one month due to perishability.The Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A was addressing the issue pertaining to the...
Assessee Liable To Pay Redemption Fine For Seized Goods Missing From Their Custody: CESTAT
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that assessee liable to pay redemption fine for seized goods missing from their custody. The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) was addressing the issue of whether when the goods were seized handed over the assessee for safe custody and they went missing while in their custody, whether such goods can be confiscated or not. In this case,...
Re-Determining Value Of CDs Imported By HP India Is Invalid Without Rejection Of Transaction Value Under Customs Valuation Rules: CESTAT
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that re-determination value of CDs imported by HP India invalid without rejection of transaction value under Rule 12 Customs Valuation Rules 2007. The bench stated that unless the proper officer rejects the transaction value under Rule 12, the valuation has to be based on transaction value as per Rule 3 with some additions, if necessary, as per Rule 10. Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules...
Royalty Paid For Exclusive Trademark License Is Not Taxable As A Service: CESTAT
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that royalty paid for exclusive trademark license is not taxable as service. The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that “the assessee was restrained to use the said trademark during the said period in any territory of the world and as such the transaction was a transaction of 'Deemed Sale' inviting no service tax liability. Hence, ...