Case Title: Herbicides India Limited vs ACIT

2024 LiveLaw (SC) 44

While setting aside the Rajasthan High Court orders, the Supreme Court restored the assessee's appeals by condoning the delay in filing the paper-book before High Court and observed that the assessee is entitled to have his appeals heard on merits.

Case Title: M/S Mangalam Publications, Kottayam V. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kottayam

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 55

While deciding the question as to whether reopening of a concluded assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act (“Act”) was legally sustainable or not, the Supreme Court recently held that for the purposes of tax assessment, an assessee's obligation is limited to making a "full and true" disclosure of all "material" or primary facts, and thereafter, the burden shifts on the assessing officer. If a return is defective, it is upto the officer that he intimate the assessee in order that defects may be cured. But if the officer fails to do so, the return cannot be called defective.

Reopening Of Income Tax Assessments : Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Delhi High Court's Guidelines To Tax Dept.

Case Title: Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Sabh Infrastructure Ltd.

The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with a 2017 Delhi High Court judgment which issued a set of guidelines to the Income Tax Department regarding the reopening of assessments.

TDS Under S.194-H Income Tax Act Won't Apply To Business Transactions Where Assessee Is Not Responsible For Paying Income : Supreme Court

Case Title: Bharti Cellular Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Another

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 176

In a significant development, the Supreme Court recently held that under Section 194-H of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cellular mobile service providers are not liable to deduct tax at source on income/profit component in payments received by their franchisees/distributors from third parties/customers.

Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S Wig Investment

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 60

The Delhi High Court has held that transactions concerning mutual funds were in the nature of investment and not motivated by trade.

Case Title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 Versus Fox Network Group Singapore Pte Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 73

The Delhi High Court has held that fees received by assessees for sub-licensing sports broadcasting rights attributable to 'live feed' is not taxable as royalty.

Investment In Shares In Indian Subsidiary 'Capital Account Transaction', Not Income: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Angelantoni Test Technologies Srl V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 25

The Delhi High Court has held that investment in shares by a company in its Indian subsidiary is a “capital account transaction” which does not give rise to any income. Therefore, the same cannot be treated as income for taxation.

Delhi High Court Directs Income Tax Commissioner To Accept BCI's Form No.10 After Condoning Delay

Case Title: Bar Council Of India Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 27

The Delhi High Court has directed the income tax commissioner to accept Form No. 10 submitted by the Bar Council of India (BCI) after condoning the delay.

Income Tax: Denial of 80lA Benefit In 4th Year Of Assessment, U-Turn By Department Is Not Justified: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus M/S Bt Global Communications India Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 34

The Delhi High Court has held that the Principal Commissioner Income Tax (PCIT) wrongly invoked jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act and fell in error by taking a U-turn in the fourth assessment year, thereby denying the benefit of Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act.

Case Title: CIT Versus RRPR Holding Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 3

The Delhi High Court has held that actual interest expenditure had to be adjusted against the income earned by way of interest.

Case Title: Hyatt International-Southwest Asia Ltd. Versus Additional Director Of Income Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 13

The Delhi High Court has held that the use of trademarks incidental to advertisement or publicity was held as neither royalty nor fees for technical services (FTS) but as business income.

Case Title: Harshdip Singh Dhillon Versus Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 20

The Delhi High Court has held that the employee accepted salary after TDS deduction and the employer is responsible for non-deposit of TDS.

Case Title: Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus M/S Indo Rama Textiles Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 118

The Delhi High Court has held that the sales tax subsidy or incentive received by the assessee under the Dispersal of Industries Package of Incentives, 1993, was a capital receipt.

AO Lacks Jurisdiction To Pass Draft Assessment Order In Absence Of " Any Variation In Income Or Loss ": Delhi High Court

Case Title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation Versus S.A.Chitra Ventures Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 211

The Delhi High Court has held that the AO, under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, would have no jurisdiction to pass a draft assessment order in the absence of "any variation in the income or loss returned," which is prejudicial to the interest of the assessee.

Subscription To Legal Database Can't Be Construed Transfer Of Copyright, Subscription Fee Is Not Royalty: Delhi High Court

Case Title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 Versus Relx Inc

The Delhi High Court has held that subscription to legal databases cannot be construed as a transfer of copyright.

Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S Clix Finance India Pvt. Ltd.

The Delhi High Court has held that the inadequacy of the inquiry by the AO with respect to certain claims would not in itself be a reason to invoke the powers enshrined in Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.

Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S Forum Sales Pvt. Ltd.

The Delhi High Court has held that any pick-and-choose method of rejecting certain entries from the books of account while accepting others without an appropriate justification is arbitrary and may lead to an incomplete, unreasonable, and erroneous computation of the income of an assessee.

Expression “Yes” By PCIT Couldn't Be Considered A Valid Approval U/s 151 Of Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -7 Versus Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.

The Delhi High Court has held that the expression “yes” could not be considered to be a valid approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act.

Assessment Order Passed Beyond Time Limit Prescribed U/s 153 Merits To Be Quashed: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Readers Digest Book and Home Entertainment (India) Pvt Ltd vs DCIT

Finding that no valid demand stood raised against the Petitioner / assessee prior to Sep 30, 2021, the Delhi High Court directed the Respondents / Revenue to re-compute the refund payable to the petitioner along with statutory interest which shall run up to the date of remittance in accordance with law.

ITAT Must Recall Its Order U/s 254 To Correct Manifest Error Apparent On Record: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT vs Fiserv India Private Ltd.

While condoning the delay of 86 days by Revenue in filing the appeal, the Delhi High Court dismisses Revenue's appeal filed against the Tribunal's order in miscellaneous application filed by assessee to review its earlier order u/s. 254(2) of the Income tax Act.

Upward Adjustments Of Income As Proposed By TPO Stands Withdrawn: Delhi High Court Applies Rule Of Consistency To Adopt TNMM

Case Title: Pr. CIT vs Oriflame India Pvt Ltd

Finding that the matter has been resolved and Modicare Limited has been excluded from the list of comparable to determine the ALP, the Delhi High Court dismisses Revenue's appeal against ITAT's decision in case of assessee engaged in sale of a wide variety of skin care and cosmetic products

Services Provided By Irish Company To Its Indian Counterpart Not Technical Services: Delhi High Court Quashes Order Denying Nil/Lower TDS certificate

Case Title: SFDC Ireland Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax

The Delhi High Court has quashed the order denying Nil or lower TDS certificates and held that the services provided by the assessee, Irish Company, to its Indian counterpart were not technical services.

ITO Can't Retain Amount Deposited By Taxpayer Without Framing Final Assessment Order During Period Of Stay: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Navisite India Pvt Ltd vs CIT

The Delhi High Court allowed assessee's petition seeking refund of amounts which was deposited towards part payment of demand raised in pursuance of assessment order for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10.

Pre-Deposit Of 20% Demand Is Not Precondition For Consideration Of Stay Application During Pendency Of First Appeal: Delhi High Court

Case Title: National Association Of Software And Services Companies (NASSCOM) Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) Circle 2 (1)

The Delhi High Court has held that a 20% pre-deposit demand is not a precondition for consideration of a stay application during the pendency of the first appeal.

Failure Of AO To Take Concrete Steps To Ascertain The Genuineness And Creditworthiness Of Transactions: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S Paramount Propbuild Pvt. Ltd.

The Delhi High Court has held that the AO has not taken any concrete steps to ascertain the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions.

Variance In Allowable Deductions Doesn't Amount To Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. ICICI Bank Ltd

The Delhi High Court has held that the assessee cannot be said to furnish inaccurate particulars of income merely for variance in allowable deductions.

Abhisar Buildwell Judgment Can't Be Construed To Be An Authority To Override Mandate Of Section 245-I: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Orchid Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus PCIT

The Delhi High Court has held that the judgement of Abhisar Buildwell passed by the Supreme Court cannot be construed to be an authority to override the mandate of Section 245-I of the Income Tax Act.

Bombay High Court

Case Title: Geopreneur Realty Private Limited Versus UOI

The Bombay High Court has held that a change of opinion does not constitute justification and/or reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.

Case Title: Shri Shanmukhananda Fine Arts Versus The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemptions)

The Bombay High Court has held that the AO has no jurisdiction to assess or reassess any income, which was the subject matter of an appeal.

The bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale has observed that since the grant of benefit under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was the subject matter of appeal and has been held in favour of the assessee, the matter cannot be reopened.

Case Title: Neelam Ajit Versus ACIT

The Bombay High Court at Goa has directed the department to accept the declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (VsV Act).

The bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Valmiki Sa Menezes has observed that the delay alleged on the part of the Petitioner is hardly 11 days. The alleged deficit payment, if any, is of hardly 2,21,862. However, even if it is assumed that there was some marginal delay, this delay is attributable to the technical glitches and also the mistakes of the Respondents in processing the Petitioner's declaration.

Defect Notice Caused No Prejudice Since Last 30 Years, Assessee Clearly Understood Purport Of Notice: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Veena Estate Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax

The Bombay High Court has held that even assuming that there was a defect in the notice, it had caused no prejudice to the assessee, and the assessee “clearly understood” what the purport and import of the notice were under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The principles of natural justice cannot be read in abstract form.

HSBC Bank Carrying On Bona Fide Banking Business In Mauritius Exempt From Tax In India: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. HSBC Bank (Mauritius) Ltd.

The Bombay High Court has held that HSBC Bank carrying on bona fide banking business in Mauritius is exempt from tax in India.

Income Tax Deduction Available On Excise Duty Claim As It Does Not Amount To Double Deduction: Bombay High Court

Case Title: M/s. Johnson and Johnson Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The Bombay High Court has held that excise duty paid and included in the closing stock has to be claimed separately as a deduction; otherwise, the appellant would not be claiming the entire excise duty paid in the year of its payment.

AO Can't Take Recourse To Re-open Assessment To Remedy Error Resulting From His Oversight In Assessment Proceeding: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Emkay Global Financial Services Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

The Bombay High Court has held that the assessing officer cannot take recourse to reopen the assessment to remedy the error resulting from his oversight in the assessment proceeding.

Legal Services Provided By Individual Advocate, Partnership Firm Of Advocates Exempted From Service Tax: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Adv. Pooja Patil Versus The Deputy Commissioner

The Bombay High Court has held that the service provided by an individual advocate, a partnership firm of advocates, by way of legal services is exempt from levy of service tax.

Share Premium Received By Issuance Of Shares Is On Capital Account And Gives Rise To No Income: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Shendra Advisory Services P. Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The Bombay High Court has held that the share premium received by the issuance of shares is on the capital account and gives rise to no income.

Storage Tanks Does Not Qualify Either As Land Or As Building, TDS Deductible On Storage Charges: Bombay High Court

Case Title: The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Versus M/s. B. Arunkumar Trading Ltd.

The Bombay High Court has held that the respondent (assessee) ought to have deducted tax under Section 194I of the Income Tax Act, 1961, from the storage charges paid by the assessee.

Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Issued Against Godrej For Beyond Limitation Period

Case Title: Godrej Industries Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

The Bombay High Court has quashed the reassessment notices issued against Godrej because the notice was issued beyond the limitation period.

Case Title: Shell India Markets Private Limited Versus Union of India

The Bombay High Court has held that business support services are not taxable as a fee for technical services (FTS), and no TDS is liable to be deducted.

Case Title: Ashok Chaganlal Thakkar Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre

The Bombay High Court has held that actual carrying on of agricultural operations is not a necessary condition for deciding that the parcels of land were agricultural lands.

Exgratia Bonus Paid By Indian Express To Employees Over And Above Eligible Bonus Is Allowable As Business Expenditure: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd. Versus CIT

The Bombay High Court has held that exgratia bonuses paid to employees over and above the eligible bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act are allowable as business expenditures.

Harshad Mehta Scam: AO Can't Assess Additions Again If Deleted By CIT(A) In First Round Of Proceedings; Bombay High Court

Case Title: CCIT(OSD)/Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Versus Bhupendra Champaklal Dalal

The Bombay High Court in the Harshad Mehta Scam case, while upholding the ITAT's ruling, held that the Assessing Officer could not have assessed additions again since the CIT (A) had deleted the same in the first round of proceedings and the concerned matters have attained finality.

Interest Paid On Borrowed Funds For Investment In Shares Is Hit By Sec 14A If Dividend Received On Shares Was Not Part Of Total Income: Bombay HC

Case Title: Mahesh K. Mehta Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The Bombay High Court recently held that the interest paid on borrowed funds in respect of investment in shares of two companies was hit by Section 14A of the Act inasmuch as the dividend received on such shares did not form part of the total income.

Madras High Court

Case Title: Anamallais Bus Transports P. Ltd verses The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 24

While observing that transaction pertaining to loan between two concerns wherein the liability of borrower stood reduced in the books of accounts to an extent of payment made to clear the liability of assessee appears to be in accordance with law, the Madras High Court ruled that penalty under Section 271E of Income tax Act, 1961 cannot be levied on repayment of loan in absence of cash transaction.

Reopening Of Assessment Inspired From 'Review' & 'Change Of Opinion' By Subsequent AO Is Deprecated: Madras HC

Case Title: BNY Mellon Technology Private Limited Vs Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 12

While setting aside the order disposing of the assessee's objection to re-opening of the assessment pursuant to the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the consequent reassessment order, the Madras High Court held that there is no scope for re-opening the assessment, since the reasons cited for same was inspired from change of opinion of the Assessing officer.

Case Title: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus K.M.Mammen

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 2

The bench of Justice R. Mahdevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, while upholding the order passed by the single judge, held that since the penalty was reduced from 300% to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 279(1A) of Income Tax. The section deals with non-prosecution for tax offences where the penalty is reduced.

Madras High Court Quashes Assessment Proceedings Initiated In Violation Of Procedure Prescribed As Per Sec 144B

Case Title: CPF (INDIA) Private Limited Verses Addl. CIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 62

While holding that the draft assessment order suffers from non-application of mind, the Madras High Court sets aside the proceedings initiated in violation of procedure prescribed as per Section 144B(1)(vii) read with (xiv) and (xvi)(b) of the Income tax Act, 1961.

CBDT's Digital Evidence Investigation Manual Is Mandatory For Income Tax Dept. While Conducting Searches, Seizing Electronic Evidence: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.Saravana Selvarathnam Retails Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 101

The Madras High Court has held that it is mandatory for the income tax department to follow the Digital Evidence Investigation Manual issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) while conducting searches and seizing electronic evidence.

Internal Arrangement W/r/t Transfer Of Assessment Proceedings Not Material For Ascertaining Limitation: Madras High Court

Case Title: Taeyang Metal India Private Limited vs DCIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 107

Finding that the period of one month expired on July 31, 2022, whereas the assessment order came to be issued on Mar 25, 2023, the Madras High Court Held the assessment order issued beyond time-limit specified in Sec.144C(13) as unsustainable.

Any Order Passed By Referring To Sec 144(C)(1) Should Be Construed Only As Draft Assessment Order: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Ramco Cements Limited vs ITO

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 108

While dismissing assessee's petition, the Madras High Court held that the impugned assessment order passed by the respondent/ AO is only a draft assessment order in which case, the petitioner/ assessee should approach the appropriate forum and address their grievance in terms of Section 144 (C) of the Income Tax Act.

AO Competent To Invoke Section 154 Jurisdiction If Glaring Mistake Of Fact/Law Is Committed While Passing Assessment Order: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.Sabari Alloys & Metals India Private Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 110

The Madras High Court has held that the Assessing Officer is not incompetent to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if such officer had committed a glaring mistake of fact or law while passing the assessment order.

Tax Recovery Officer Cannot Declare Sale Made By Assessee In Favour Of 3rd Party As Void: Madras High Court

Case Title: K.N.Subramaniam Versus PCIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 116

The Madras High Court has held that a tax recovery officer cannot declare a sale made by the assessee in favour of a third party void if he finds that the property of the assessee was transferred by the assessee to a third party with an intention to defraud the revenue.

Wilful Failure To Furnish Return As Per Sec 139(1) Is Only Criterion For Initiation Of Prosecution U/s 276CC: Madras High Court

Case Title: Vinayagam Sabarisanthanakrishnan verses ACIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 118

The Madras High Court recently highlighted that provision of Section 278E of the Income tax Act brings in a statutory presumption regarding the existence of a culpable mental state.

Assessing Officers Are Not Governed By Strict Rules Of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 In Case Of Assessment Proceedings: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.LKS Gold House Private Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 120

The Madras High Court has held that assessing officers are not governed by the strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

10% of Demand Already Paid By Assessee, Madras High Court Allows Cooperative Bank's Writ Appeal By Waiving 10% Pre-Deposit

Case Title: The Salem Urban Co-operative Bank limited Versus The Income Tax Officer (TDS Ward)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 122

The Madras High Court has waived the condition of payment of a 10% pre-deposit as the 10% demand was already paid by the assessee.

Case Title: Shaju Pachelil Pathrose Versus Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 12

The Kerala High Court has held that the assessee cannot indefinitely seek time in response to a show cause notice.

Gujarat High Court

S. 80IA(4) Deduction Available To Assessee Engaged In Developing Infrastructure Projects Like Roads, Canals: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Versus Montecarlo Construction Ltd.

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 3

The Gujarat High Court has allowed the deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act to the assessee engaged in developing infrastructure projects like roads, canals, etc.

Case Title: Dhvanil Hemendra Reshamwala Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1)

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 2

In a significant legal development, the Gujarat High Court has invalidated an Income Tax Assessment Order, citing violations of Section 144B of the Income Tax Act.

Case Title: M/S AMIT HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. Versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 1

In a recent ruling, the Gujarat High Court has emphasized that applications under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 must not be dismissed arbitrarily, especially when citing the absence of genuine hardship to the petitioner.

Gujarat High Court Upholds Income Tax Department's Search and Seizure, Condemns Misconduct

Case Title: Maulikkumar Satishbhai Sheth vs Income Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, Ahmedabad

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 8

The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday, upheld the search and seizures conducted by the Income Tax (I-T) department at a lawyer's residence and office last year over alleged income tax evasion as valid.

Calcutta High Court

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 19

Case Title: Oberoi Building & Investment (P) Limited verses CIT and Another

Finding that assessee's income from sub-letting/sub-licensing the space in question, has always been accepted by Respondent / Income Tax Department as income from business, the Calcutta High Court held that assessee's income from sub-licensing/sub-letting is chargeable to tax as business income and not as income from house property.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 22

Case Title: Champa Impex Private Limited Versus Union Of India And Others

The Calcutta High Court has held that the assessee had repeatedly sought adjournments, which would show that the assessee attempted to drag the matter along, knowing well that the assessment would be time-barred.

Case Title: Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Gopal Sharma

The Calcutta High Court has upheld the quashing of an order passed by the CIT speculating on the possibility of understatement in closing stock without a specific finding.

Conduct Of Enquiry As Per Sec 148A Is Not Mandatory But Discretionary: Calcutta HC Upheld Reopening Proceeding

Case Title: Champa Impex Private Limited Verses Union of India

Pointing that the information which was furnished to the assessee though contained information pertaining to the three assessment years, the information called for in the notice dated Mar 31, 2023 pertained only to the assessment year 2016-17, the Calcutta High Court upheld the reassessment proceedings despite the fact that Section 148A(b) notice issued for AY 2016-17 was accompanied with annexure containing information for multiple AYs.

Provisions Of Section 148 Under Old Regime Including TOLA Can't Be Applied To New Regime: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: M/s Arati Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

The Calcutta High Court has held that if the provisions of the old regime of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, including Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA), are read into or applied to the new regime applicable from 01.04.2021, it would also necessarily mean that a provision repealed by the Parliament without any savings and exception clause is applied by the department even after its life has come to an end, which is clearly not permissible in law.

Tested Party Normally Should Be Least Complex Party To Controlled Transaction, Reiterates Calcutta High Court

Case Title: PCIT vs ITC INFOTECH INDIA LIMITED

The Calcutta High Court reiterated that the selection of the tested party is to further the object of the comparability analysis by making it less complex and requiring fewer adjustment.

Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Anurag Bagaria Versus The Income Tax Department

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 52

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the prosecution under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act for wilful tax evasion.

After Amendment Mere Reason To Believe Can't Be Ground For Carrying Out Reassessment: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Smt. Vasanthi Ramdas Pai Versus Income Tax Officer

The Karnataka High Court has held that the Assessing Officer has to be prima facie satisfied that there is “escapement of income”, unlike earlier law which permitted action based on mere reason to believe. Now mere reason to believe, cannot be a ground for carrying out assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.

Average Income Is To Be Considered If Variations Found In Income Tax Returns Filed By Claimant: Karnataka High Court

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 141

Case Title: Jayashree AND Mahaningappa & Others

The Karnataka High Court has held that if income tax returns are available the same should be considered as best a piece of evidence and if variations are found in the income tax returns, considered for different assessment years, it would be appropriate to consider the average income of three assessment years to arrive at the annual stable income of the claimant seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Patna High Court

Appellate Authority Cannot Dismiss Appeal For Non-Prosecution Due To Non-Appearance Of Assessee Or Authorized Representative: Patna High Court

Case Title: M/s Nav Nirman Construction vs The Union of India & Ors LL

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 4

The Patna High Court has observed that the appellate authority is not empowered to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution due to the non-appearance of the Assessee or authorized representative as the appellate authority has a duty and obligation to take into consideration the merits of the matter, examine the grounds raised by the appellant even if the appellant or authorized representative presence is not recorded; and decide the issue on merits.

'No Reason To Interfere With The Levy Of Tax On The Sale Of 'Korai'': Patna High Court

Case Title: M/s Raj Kumar Sao Kishori Lal Sao vs The State Of Bihar & Ors

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 7

In a recent ruling, the Patna High Court has upheld the imposition of tax on the sale of 'Korai,' a processed by-product used as cattle feed.

Case Title: G R Infraprojects Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax

Citation: Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 3

The Rajasthan High Court has held that once the deduction claim for education cess is withdrawn, the assessee is immune from the imposition of a penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act.

Case Title: Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited Versus Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 4

The Rajasthan High Court has held that the department's action of denying the benefit of immunity on the ground that the penalty was initiated under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act for misreporting of income is not only erroneous but also arbitrary and bereft of any reason, as in the penalty notice, the respondents have failed to specify the limb, "under-reporting" or "misreporting" of income, under which the penalty proceedings had been initiated.

Time Of Accrual For Taxing Income Gets Postponed Till Adjudication Of Dispute By Civil Court: Rajasthan High Court Stays Demand Order

The Rajasthan High Court has stayed the penalty order and consequential demand notices passed under Section 270-A and Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, respectively.

Case Title: Purnendu Shekhar Sinha Versus The Union Of India

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 23

The Patna High Court has held that differentiation between government employees and other employees for leave encashment exemption is neither discriminatory nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Generation Of Surplus From Year To Year Cannot Be Bar For Trust In Seeking Section 10 (23C) (vi) Exemption: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Chandigarh Manav Vikas Trust Versus Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax

The Rajasthan High Court has held that the assessee is being run as a trust solely for educational purposes, thus seeking the exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act of 1961, and the generation of surplus from year to year cannot be a bar in seeking such an exemption under the provision of law.

Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Municipal Corporation To Decide Representation On Waiver Of Interest On Property Tax Arrears

Case Title: M/s Coastal Ceramics and Clay Works Private Ltd. Versus UOI

The Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati has held that income tax is not leviable on an interest-free refundable security deposit for the due completion of a project by the developer.

Case Title: PCIT Versus M/s H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has allowed the deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act to the H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority as the delay in filing the return was bona fide.

Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Water Cess Levied By State Government On Hydropower Generation As Unconstitutional

Case Title: N.H.P.C. Ltd. Versus State of H.P. & ors.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has declared the levy of water cess by the state government on hydropower generation unconstitutional.

Allahabad High Court

Burden To Prove Escaped Assessment Lies On Assessing Authority: Allahabad High Court Quashes Reassessment Order Against Flipkart

Case Title: M/S Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Of U P And 4 Others

The Allahabad High Court has quashed the reassessment order against Flipkart and held that the burden to prove escaped assessment lies on assessing authority.

Case Title: Gurdeep Singh vs. Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam Moti Jheel And Another

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 129

The Allahabad High Court has held that were a statutory appeal has been filed and the condition for pre-deposit has been complied with, stay applications filed along with such appeals must be decided within a reasonable time.

S.144B Income Tax | Burden to Provide Registered Email Shifts On Assessee Only If It Can't Be Obtained From ITR/Portal/MCA Website: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Grs Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Lko. Thru. Director Shri Ganga Charan Rajput vs. Union Of India Thru. Its Secy. (Revenue) Ministry Of Finance Govt. Of India

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 188

The Allahabad High Court has held that the provision requiring the assesee to provide his “registered email address” to the income tax authorities under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is residuary in nature.

Jharkhand High Court

Jharkhand High Court Upholds Income Tax Addition On Failure To Prove Genuineness Of Creditors Who Gave Cash Loan

Case Title: Rajmeet Singh Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Ranchi

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 24

The Jharkhand High Court has upheld the income tax addition as the assessees have failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, or genuineness of the creditors, who have given cash loans.

Three-Years Limitation Period For Tax Reassessment Assessment Notice on Concealed Income Below Rs. 50 Lakh: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s Sevensea Vincom Private Limited vs The PCIT, Central Circle-I, Ranchi & Ors.

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 29

The Jharkhand High Court has held that any notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is normally three years from the end of the relevant assessment year and extendable beyond three years to 10 years, provided the income that has escaped assessment is Rs. 50,00,000 or more.

Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Dr. Karan Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 32

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that leasehold interest in the land is an asset of the company and is capable of valuation. As such, it is to be included in the value of the assets of M/s. Jyoti Private Limited so as to determine the fair market value of shares held by the assessee as well as other shareholders.