Direct Tax Half Yearly Digest: January To June 2024 - PART II
Mariya Paliwala
10 July 2024 12:15 PM GMT
Kerala High CourtAssessee Can't Indefinitely Seek Time In Response To SCN: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Shaju Pachelil Pathrose Versus Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income TaxCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 12The Kerala High Court has held that the assessee cannot indefinitely seek time in response to a show cause notice.Writ Petition Challenging Orders Of Tamil Nadu...
Kerala High Court
Assessee Can't Indefinitely Seek Time In Response To SCN: Kerala High Court
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.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 218
Case Title: Manaf Ali Hassan Versus The National Faceless Assessment Centre
The Kerala High Court has held that the writ petition challenging orders of Tamil Nadu assessing authority is not maintainable merely for having a bank account in Kerala.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 219
Case Title: M/S Sree Narayana Guru Memorial Educational And Cultural Trust Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
The Kerala High Court has held that assessments can be reopened based on audit objections under a new reassessment regime.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 222
Case Title: The Income Tax Officer Ward Versus Vazhakkulam Block Rural Co-Operative Society Ltd.
The Kerala High Court has held that affording a personal hearing to the assessee is mandatory in an inquiry under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 230
Case Title: Mini Muthoottu Credit India (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax
The Kerala High Court has held that the land in question was used for agricultural purposes, which yielded agricultural income, which in turn was exempt from income tax under Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Lukose. K.C. Versus Deputy Commissioner
The Kerala High Court has held that the permission to effect over-the-counter sales of alcoholic liquor was a concession given to bar-attached hotel owners to permit them to carry on business and tide over the COVID lockdown period. The assessee cannot now contend that the tax on such transactions should not be levied on him because he did not originally have permission to effect such sales.
Case Title: Annamanada Gramakshemam Nidhi Limited verses UOI
The Kerala High Court recently held that any financial activity ought to be regulated reasonably within the ambit of law, and it cannot glissade into a situation where its operations become impossible, or are defeated by oppressive or impossible restrictions and regulations.
Additional Income Can't Be Treated As Concealed Income: Kerala High Court
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Shri. Ambady Krishna Menon
The Kerala High Court has held that additional income cannot be treated as concealed income for the purposes of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 312
Case Title: Hotel Allied Trades Pvt. Ltd Versus The Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax
The Kerala High Court has held that the expenditure that was incurred by the appellant/assessee by way of addition to buildings and electrical fittings on leasehold premises was in the nature of capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 311
Case Title: P. A. JOSE Versus UOI
The Kerala High Court has held that the stipulation under Clause 16 of the Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) for the adoption of first-in, first-out (FIFO) or weighted average cost for valuation of the stock or inventory cannot be applied in the Assessment Year 2017-2018 for the valuation of the opening stock, as the opening and closing stock of the year are to be valued by applying the same methodology.
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.
Income Tax Act | Section 119(2)(B) Application Cannot Be Rejected Citing Vague & Arbitrary Reasons
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.
Case Title: Surya Exim Limited Thro Director Bhawani Singh Versus Union Of India & Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 42
The Gujarat High Court has quashed the demand notice and assessment order in the absence of any claim not forming part of the resolution plan (RP).
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: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-9, Kolkata Vs. Bina Gupta
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, as the AO failed to make a proper inquiry on the bogus claim of long-term capital gain (LTCG) by the sale of shares.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central) -2, Kolkata Versus M/S. BST Infratech Limited
The Calcutta High Court has held that merely proving the identity of the investors does not discharge the onus on the assessee if the capacity or credit worthiness has not been established.
Case Title: SK. Jaynal Abddin Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata
The Calcutta High Court has held that payments by supervisors to individual labourers, each not exceeding Rs. 20,000, cannot be disallowed under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Atlantic Dealers Pvt. Ltd.
The Calcutta High Court, while deciding whether the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified or not, held that only because the directors failed to respond to the notices issued, the Assessing Officer could draw an adverse inference.
Case Title: Balgopal Merchants Private Limited Versus The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata
The Calcutta High Court has held that the source of investments by those two companies is also the share capital and share premium raised by them while issuing their own shares to other closely held companies, and those companies had no noticeable business activities.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Asansol Versus Sri Manoj Parmar And Others
The Calcutta High Court has held that the income tax department was delaying the matter for a prolonged period and failed to incorporate the revised Central Public Works Department (CPWD) rates as the quantum of rent for the building.
Case Title: Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-Iii, Kolkata Versus M/S. Vamshi Chemicals Ltd.
The Calcutta High Court has held that if the share application money is neither a loan nor a deposit, then neither Section 269SS nor 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall apply. Consequently, no penalty, either under Section 271D or under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, could be imposed.
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.
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.
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
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.
Rajasthan High Court
Title: M/s Napin Impex Pvt. Ltd. v Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Janpath, Jaipur
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 117
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside an assessment order passed by the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Jaipur (“CCT”) under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The Court observed that the assessment order was unreasoned and was passed without any application of mind, violating the principles of natural justice.
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.
Case Title: Lalit Kumar Kothari Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre & Anr.
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.
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.
Case Title: The Income Tax Officer Versus Rajendra Prasad Vaish
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 88
The Rajasthan High Court has held that for holding an assessee guilty of the offence of filing delayed income tax returns, “mens rea“ is a necessary ingredient.
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: S.v.v.estates (swarna Palace) Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, while restraining the Municipal Corporation from taking coercive steps against the petitioner, directed the corporation to decide representation on a 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: The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Gracy Babu
The Kerala High Court has held that consideration received by trustees for such relinquishment of trusteeship cannot be treated as a capital receipt for the purposes of assessing it under the head of capital gains; the consideration will have to be treated as the individual income of the assessees and assessed accordingly under the appropriate head.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 364
Case Title: Balan Panicker Ramesh Kumar Versus Union Of India
The Kerala High Court has held that it is the prerogative of the government to fix the limit of income from the encashment of earned leave salary for the purposes of exemption from payment of income tax. Unless the government issues a notification fixing the limit of income for earned leave salary, an employee cannot claim exemption from payment of income tax on the encashment of earned leave for up to 300 days.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 363
Case Title: Lakeshore Hospital And Research Centre Limited Versus The Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre
The Kerala High Court has dismissed the writ petition challenging the assessment order and notice of demand on the grounds that they were issued in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Delay In Approaching Revision Authority Under Income Tax Act Can't Be Condoned: Kerala High Court
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 366
Case Title: Equity Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd Versus PCIT
The Kerala High Court has held that the delay in approaching the revision authority under the Income Tax Act cannot be condoned.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 369
Case Title: M/S. Sunny Jacob Jewellers Gold Hyper Market Versus CIT
The Kerala High Court has held that based on the material obtained during the search, the Assessing Officer, who gets the jurisdiction to re-open the assessments, can do so in respect of the individual assessment years comprised in the block period of six years only if the material obtained during the search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, or any part thereof, relates to the assessment year in question.
Credit Available On Advance Tax Paid For Stock-Transferred: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Hillwood Furniture Pvt. Ltd Versus The Assistant Commissioner
The Kerala High Court has held that the petitioner will be entitled to credit for the entire amount paid in terms of Circular No. 50/2006 for the goods in question, which were stock-transferred to its branch office in Pollachi.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 31
Case Title: M/s AMN Life Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & others
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the Deputy CGST Commissioner for refusing to entertain the application of the assessee or petitioner for a refund of unutilized input tax credit.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 32
Case Title: Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. Versus UOI
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed the order rejecting Ultra Tech's claim for the grant of budgetary support.
Case Title: PCIT Versus M/s H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 1
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.
Case Title: N.H.P.C. Ltd. Versus State of H.P. & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 5
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has declared the levy of water cess by the state government on hydropower generation unconstitutional.
Allahabad High Court
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 116
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.
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.
Case Title: Dipak Kumar Agarwal vs. Assessing Officer And 4 Others 2024 Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 248
The Allahabad High Court has held that the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority to decide the application for release of seized assets under Section 132B (1)(i) does not abate after a period of 120 days from the date on which the last of the authorizations for search under section 132 or for requisition under section 132-A was executed.
Case Title: M/S Arvind Kumar Shivhare vs. Union Of India And Another Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 249
The Allahabad High Court has held that Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal had not issued a general mandamus quashing all notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court observed that the order of Supreme Court was limited to those notices which had been challenged before the Apex Court and various High Courts in India.
Case Title: Hotel President Through Its Partner / Proprietor And Another v. State Of Up And 2 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 251
While quashing the enhanced assessment order regarding house tax passed by the authorities, the Allahabad High Court held that the authorities acted in undue haste by giving one day's notice for the hearing, which is not sufficient notice.
Case Title: Meera Pandey Thru. Her Attorney vs. Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 271
The Allahabad High Court has held that mere statement of the contractor doing construction work cannot be relied upon to declare such construction as benami transaction under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The Court held that “reasons to believe” in Section 24(1) of the Act must be based on cogent and relevant material.
Case Title: Satish Kumar Bansal Huf v. National Faceless Assessment Centre Nafac And Another
The Allahabad High Court has held that opportunity of personal hearing is mandatory under Section 144B(6)(vii) and (viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when show cause notice is issued regarding why assessment may not be completed as proposed. The Court held that once the assesee “requests” for an opportunity of personal hearing, it becomes incumbent on the Assessing Authority to grant that opportunity under Section 144B(6)(viii).
Case Title: Rahul Sachan v. Income Tax Officer
The Allahabad High Court has held that a pointwise consideration of objections that may be raised by an assessee in response to a notice issued to him under Section 148 A(b) is not necessary while passing an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title: M/s Gokal Chand Rattan Chand Versus UOI
2024 LiveLaw (PH) 202
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the auction proceedings based on a quashed ex-parte income tax appellate tribunal (ITAT) order by the tax recovery officer are void ab initio.
Case Title: Misty Meadows Private Limited Versus Union of India and others
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that once the search and seizure were conducted and an assessment order was passed by invoking Section 153A of the Income Tax Act for the AY 2006-07 to 2012-13, a fresh order without conducting a search and seizure operation would not be sustainable in law.
Case Title: Munjal BCU Centre Of Innovation And Entrepreneurship, Ludhiana Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemptions, Chandigarh
2024 LiveLaw (PH) 106
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the assessee is not expected to keep the e-portal of the department open all the time so as to have knowledge of what the department is supposed to be doing.
Case Title: M/s Shree Digvijaya Woollen Mills Ltd Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax
The Punjab & Haryana High Court deleted the addition made by the AO u/s 41(1) of the Income tax Act on account of sale of copper wire, finding that the AO had made additions under the said provision simply on basis of presumption regarding the said sale, even after finding no stock in the premises.
Case Title: M/s Shree Digvijaya Woollen Mills Ltd Verses Commissioner of Income-Tax
2024 LiveLaw (PH) 133
Finding that the stock production and consumption records were maintained under the supervision of the Excise Authorities and there is no objection raised with regard to the said stock by the ITO, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the Assessing Officer could not have proceeded on a presumption alleging higher wastage shown by the assessee.
Jharkhand High Court
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.
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: Adarsh Sahkari Grih Nirman Swawlambi Samiti Limited Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamshedpur
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 55
The Jharkhand High Court has recently clarified the criteria for reviewing judgments in tax appeal cases, particularly regarding decisions based on legal questions.
Case Title: Anvil Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 64
The Jharkhand High Court has held that any unjust withholding of money or property from another party goes against the fundamental principles of justice, fairness, and good conscience. In this context, the unauthorized deductions made from the ongoing bills are unquestionably unlawful.
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court
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.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Dr. Karan Singh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 73
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has held that leasehold interest in the land is an asset of the company and is capable of valuation.
Orissa High Court
Case Title: Deepak Kumar Acharya Versus Commissioner, Income Tax Dept and others
The Orissa High Court has held that information related to the outcome of a tax evasion petition sought under the Right to Information Act cannot be provided.
Case Title: The Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhawan And Another vs. The Mahabir Jute Mills Lts. Sahjanwah Gorakhpur
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 327
The Allahabad High Court has held that once the acceptance of books of accounts by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) have not been objected to by the Assessing Authority before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, it is not open to the Assessing Officer to disturb the gross profit rate as declared by the assessee.
Case Title: Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. Union Of India And 2 Others
The Allahabad High Court has held that proceedings under Section 148A of the Income tax Act, 1961 are summary in nature. The Court held that at the stage of passing order under Section 148A(d), the Assessing Authority has to only see if it is a “fit case” for initiation of reassessment proceedings or not.
Gauhati High Court
Case Title: Karan Jain Versus The Union Of India
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 30
The Gauhati High Court has held that the long-term capital gains are exempt from income tax, and the non-disclosure while computing the long-term capital gains cannot result in causing prejudice to the department.
Telangana High Court
Colourable Devices To Evade Tax Can't Be Tax Planning, Rules Telangana High Court
Case Title: Ayodhya Rami Reddy Alla Versus Principal Commissioner of Incometax Central
The Telangana High Court has held that tax planning may be legitimate, provided it is within the framework of the law. Colorable devices cannot be part of tax planning, and it is wrong to encourage or entertain the belief that it is honorable to avoid the payment of tax by resorting to dubious methods. It is the obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes honestly without resorting to subterfuges.
