Direct Tax Weekly Round-Up: 21 To 27 July 2024
Mariya Paliwala
28 July 2024 10:45 AM IST
Supreme CourtState Not Liable To Collect Tax At Source While Giving Contractors Permit To Vend Liquor At Fixed Retail Price : Supreme CourtCase Details : THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA & ANR. v. MYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LTD. & ORS CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2168 OF 2007Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 496The Supreme Court recently held that any vendor who buys liquor from state...
Supreme Court
Case Details : THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA & ANR. v. MYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LTD. & ORS CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2168 OF 2007
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 496
The Supreme Court recently held that any vendor who buys liquor from state manufacturers without obtaining it through auction and sells in retail at a fixed price would be excluded from the definition of 'buyer' under Section 206C of the Income Tax Act. Such a trade would be exempted from TCS (Tax Collected at Source).
Case Details : Mineral Area Development v. M/S Steel Authority Of India & Ors (CA N0. 4056/1999)
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 512
The Supreme Court has recently held that regular entries under List I and II of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution cannot be given a wider interpretation to include taxation powers which are covered under the domain of specific tax entries under the 7th Schedule.
Delhi High Court
Not Permissible For TPO To Engage In Restructuring Of Transaction: Delhi High Court
Case Title: CIT Versus A.T. Kearney Ltd.
The Delhi High Court has held that it is not permissible for the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to engage in the restructuring of a transaction.
Case Title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation Versus Telstra Singapore Pte Ltd.
The Delhi High Court has held that the receipts from Indian customers for services provided outside' Indian Territory in connection with use or right to use of process or equipment by the assessee company cannot be taxed as royalty.
Case Title: CIT(E) Versus NIIT Foundation
The Delhi High Court has held that the assessee is carrying on educational activities that are covered by the provisions of Section 2 (15) of the Income Tax Act, and it is neither business nor profession of the assessee.
Bombay High Court
Case Title: PCIT Versus G.K. Developers
The Bombay High Court has held that the expression 'built up area' introduced with effect from April 1, 2005, could not be applied retrospectively, and the Tribunal was justified in holding that up to April 1, 2005, the expression 'built up area' would exclude the balcony area.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Vishal Jhajharia Versus The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Faceless Assessment Centre & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court has quashed the assessment order on the grounds that the department has failed to put the assessee on notice in respect of addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax.
Kerala High Court
2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 467
Case Title: PCIT Versus Arun Majeed
The Kerala High Court has held that when a property kept not for trade but for investment purposes is sold, the gain has to fall under the head 'capital gains' and such a transaction is only taxable under capital gain and not under adventure of trade.
Manipur High Court
Case Title: Smt. Mema Paul Versus Income Tax Officer
The Manipur High Court has held that the reassessment made by the Income Tax Officer without communicating the order of reassessment and the demand notice of the reassessment within time cannot be treated as a valid assessment.
Case Title: Jatinder Singh Bhangu verses Union of India and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 165
While pointing that scheme of faceless assessment is applicable from the stage of show cause notice u/s 148 as well as 148A, the Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that notice u/s 148 cannot be issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer after introduction of faceless assessment scheme.
Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: PCIT Versus Tripta Sharma
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 124
The Jharkhand High Court, while dismissing the appeal filed by the department, held that a delayed condonation application not filed with an appeal memo and subsequent filing cannot cure defects.