HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title: M/s Laxmi Telecom v. State of U.P. and Anr.
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 2160 of 2
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 Title: Dish TV India Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) and 2 Ors.
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1953 of 2024
The Allahabad High Court has held that an assessee claiming refund of excess TDS (tax deduction at source) is not required to fill Form 26B under the Income Tax Rules once Form 5 of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 has been issued to them.
“A perusal of the Rules would reveal that Form 26B is required to filled up if the assessee claims refund paid under Chapter XXVII-B of the Act, 1961. The Stage of requirement of filling up the Form 26B was long over in the year 2008-09 itself and the present refund was being sought by the petitioner in terms of the provisions of the VSV Act, 2020, which did not require filling up any form, as claimed by the respondents, and as such, the demand made has no sanction in law”, held Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra.
Delhi HC
Case title: M/S VOS Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Principal Additional Director General & Anr. (and batch)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4831/2021 and connected matters
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 authority to conclude proceedings within a stipulated period of time “where it is possible to do so” cannot be countenanced as a license to keep matters unresolved for years. The flexibility which the statute confers is not liable to be construed as sanctioning lethargy or indolence.”
Case title: M/S VOS Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Principal Additional Director General & Anr. (and batch)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4831/2021 and connected matters
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, 2017. Some cases were initiated by the authorities as far back as 2006.
Case title: M S Ciena Communications India Pvt Ltd v. The Principal Commissioner Of Customs Import & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 14512/2024
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.
The High Court held that mere pendency of Revenue's appeal would not entail the department to insist on provisional assessment of the goods. “Since there is no stay of the order of CESTAT, the goods would have to be released in terms of the CESTAT order dated 18th December 2023 as per the classification as directed by the CESTAT i.e.,CTH 851770,” it ordered.
Case title: Rose Wood Buildwell Private Limited v. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 6097/2021
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 modified to include settlement of certain disputes that were not the subject matter of appeal preferred by the Assessee.
Rajasthan HC
Case title: Dharnia Motors v. UoI & Ors.
Case no.: Civil Writ Petition No. 9717/2018
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 trader/dealer's claim of transitional credit.
TRIBUNALS
Case Title: ACIT versus Ranu Vohra
Case Number: ITA No.412/MUM/2024
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 alleging adoption of colourable device”.
Case Title: Medley Pharmaceuticals vs. DCIT
Case Number: ITA. No. 1387 to 1390/Mum/2009
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.
Referring to the decision in case of CIT v. Dewan Kraft Systems [2008] 297 ITR 305, the Division Bench of Saktijit Dey (Vice President) and Narendra Kumar Billaiya (Accountant Member) reiterated that “in computing the gross total income of assessee, the same has to be determined after adjusting the losses and that, if the gross total income of the assessee so determined turns out to be 'Nil', then the assessee would not be entitled to deduction under Chapter VI-A of the said Act”.