Tax Weekly Round-Up: February 03 - February 09, 2025
Kapil Dhyani
10 Feb 2025 11:30 AM
SUPREME COURTIncome Tax Act | Offence Committed Before Show-Cause Notice Compoundable As Covered By 'First Offence' In Compounding Guidelines: Supreme CourtCase title: VINUBHAI MOHANLAL DOBARIA Vs CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCase no.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 20519 OF 2024The Supreme Court on January 7 set aside the Gujarat High Court's judgment dated March 21, 2017, through which...
SUPREME COURT
Case title: VINUBHAI MOHANLAL DOBARIA Vs CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Case no.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 20519 OF 2024
The Supreme Court on January 7 set aside the Gujarat High Court's judgment dated March 21, 2017, through which the rejection to the compounding application of the Appellant for the assessment year 2013-2014, for having filed the belated income tax return, was upheld on the ground that only for the "first offence" compounding of offence is possible. Since the Appellant had filed delayed income tax for 2011-2012 and his compounding application was accepted, it now cannot be accepted.
However, the Supreme Court observed that the "first offence" is the offence committed prior to the showcause notice, which was the case here for both years.
HIGH COURTS
Bombay HC
Case Title: City Corporation Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 6076 OF 2023
The Bombay High Court stated that notice issued to a non-existing entity post-merger is a substantive illegality and not some procedural violation.
“we cannot condone the fundamental error in issuing the impugned notices against a non-existing company despite full knowledge of the merger. The impugned notices, which are non-est cannot be treated as “good” as urged on behalf of the department” stated the Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain.
Delhi HC
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -21 v. M/S.Remfry & Sagar
Case no.: ITA 199/2017
The Delhi High Court has held that the fees paid by IPR law firm Remfry & Sagar to acquire the goodwill vested in a company run by the family members of its deceased founder, is a business expense deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja observed, “the primary, nay, sole purpose for incurring expenditure towards license fee was to use the words “Remfry & Sagar” and derive benefit of the goodwill attached to it. The appellant do not dispute that Dr. Sagar had validly acquired the goodwill and that the same constituted a valuable asset which was transferable.”
Case title: M/S Vishal Video And Appliances Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner Of Customs Acc(Import)
Case no.: CUSAA 9/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the Customs Department, the Central GST Department, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Directorate of General GST Intelligence (DGGI) to make sure that counsel representing them on advance service are instructed properly.
A bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma ordered the Commissioner of Customs to prepare an SOP as to the manner in which the Department shall ensure that instructions are given to the nominated Counsels in the matter when advance copies are served.
Case title: Property Plus Realtors v. Union Of India & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17371/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that the date of the assessment order, wherein an Assessing Officer recommended separate penalty proceedings against the assessee under Section 271DA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for accepting more than ₹2 lakh in cash, is not relevant for determining the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c).
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said a plain reading of Section 275(1)(c) indicates that the time limit for completion of the action for imposition of penalty is to be reckoned from: (a) the end of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated are completed; or (b) six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever expires later.
Case title: M/S SMEC India (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9969/2019
The Delhi High Court has held that an application for revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be preferred by an assessee who makes suo motu disallowance in its Return of Income (RoI/ ITR), under a bonafide yet mistaken belief that the same was liable to be offered for taxation.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar added that the assessee cannot be denied relief merely on the ground that the application was moved without amending the RoI.
Case title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 v. Adobe Systems Software Ireland Ltd
Case no.: ITA 474/2023
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to the effect that Adobe Systems India Pvt. Ltd is not a dependent agent permanent establishment (DAPE) of Adobe Systems Software Ireland Ltd.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar affirmed that no further attribution of profit can be made as Adobe India was remunerated at arm's length.
Case title: Kanwaljeet Kaur v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle (34) 1 Delhi & Ors. and batch
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3908/2023
The Delhi High Court has interpreted the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal to elucidate the time period surviving under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for issuing reassessment notices.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar concluded that the period between 20 March 2020 to 30 June 2021 would be excluded from limitation, in view of Section 3(1) of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.
Further, the period between the date of issuance of the impugned reassessment notices (if falling between 20 March 2020 to 30 June 2021) up to the date of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal case (04 May 2022), would also be excluded, in light of third proviso to Section 149(1). The bench added that the third period which is liable to be excluded is the time for furnishing objections by the assessee.
Case title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 v. Standard Chartered Grindlays Ltd
Case no.: ITA 388/2019
The Delhi High Court has held that the limit prescribed under Section 36(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act 1961, on deductions that an employer can seek for contributions made towards superannuation funds, applies only at the stage of setting up the fund or making ordinary annual payments.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said any contribution made additionally in discharge of an overarching obligation would not be rendered as a disallowable expense.
Case title: Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer And Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16232/2024
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, which prescribes a limitation period for initiating reassessment against an assessee, is not an enabling provision but rather a proscription on the Assessing Officer's powers.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “The opening sentence of Section 149(1) of the Act clearly indicates that the time limit as prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act is a hard stop. Therefore, the procedure that is required to be completed for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is required to be completed prior to the expiry of the time limit as prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act. Such time limit cannot be breached…There is no ambiguity in this regard given the construct of Section 149(1) of the Act, which is not in the nature of enabling provision but a provision that proscribes an action.”
Gujarat HC
Case Title: M/S SHREENATHJI EXTRUCTION v/s UNION OF INDIA AND
Case no.: R/SCA/17685 of 2024
The Gujarat High Court recently issued notice on a plea challenging the validity of Section 75(2) CGST Act wherein if the concerned court or authority concludes that show cause notice issued under Section 74(1) to a person for tax evasion is unsustainable as the charges of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts aren't established, then the department shall determine the tax payable as if the notice was issued under Section 73(1).
For context, Section 73(1) states that where it appears to the proper officer that any tax has not been paid or short paid or erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised for "any reason, other than the reason of fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax", he shall serve notice on the person chargeable with such a tax, requiring him to show cause as to why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with interest payable thereon under section 50 and a penalty leviable under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder.
Karnataka HC
Case Title: Rajkumar Agarwal v. Income Tax Department.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201214 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201213 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201215 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201216 OF 2023
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash prosecution initiated by the Income Tax Department against an assessee who had willfully failed to submit his income tax returns in time for the Assessment Years 2012- 13 to 2015-16 and thereby committed the alleged offence.
A single judge, Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed the petitions filed by Rajkumar Agarwal. It said, “Delay in filing of the income tax returns would not only result in payment of penalty, but it also results in prosecution as provided under Chapter 22 of the Act. Therefore, merely for the reason that petitioner has paid the penalty levied by the Competent Authority for the delay in filing of the returns, the same does not exonerate the petitioner from being prosecuted.”
Madras HC
Case Title: Thanushika v The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Chennai)
Case No: W.P.No.5005 of 2024
The Madras High Court has recently criticised a Seizing Officer attached to the office of the Principal Commissioner of Customs for seizing a gold “Mangalya Thali Kodi” (necklace) from a Srilankan citizen alleging that the same was against the Baggage Rules 2016.
The court observed that the quantity of jewellery worn by the petitioner was normal for a newly married person and that the officers, while conducting searches should respect the customs of every religion in the country. The court also noted that it was unfair on the part of the officer to remove the petitioner's thali and such act was intolerable.
TRIBUNALS
Case Title: Executive Engineer (Workshop) M.P. Power Appellant Transmission Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise Customs & CGST
Case Number: Excise Appeal No.50329 of 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has granted a refund along with interest, despite the absence of a statutory provision for interest under central excise laws at the relevant time.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that “the amount collected by way of Central excise duty was illegal as the activity itself did not involve any manufacture and the same cannot be allowed to be retained by the Government.”
Case Title: M/s Secure Meters Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Imports)
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51041 OF 2020
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that imported communication modules function independently as parts of communication hubs, classifiable under CTI 8517 70 90.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) have observed that “since the communication modules were imported, they should be classified as such. The correct classification of the communication modules is CTI 8517 70 90.”
Case Title: Rallis India Limited v. C.C.E-Bharuch
Case Number: Service Appeal No 11894 of 2016 - SM
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the department cannot consider a refund claim unless it is specified under which notification and provision the same has been sought.
The Bench of Somesh Arora (Judicial) has observed that, “The lapse of non-filing of refund under proper notification separately for June 2013 cannot be termed as mere procedural lapse. The department cannot be expected to consider refund claim if it is not indicated to them as to under which notification and provisions same has been sought.”
Case Title: M/s Indus Towers Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Central Goods and Service Tax, Gurugram
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 60744 of 2023
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that adjustment of refund against a confirmed demand during the pendency of an appeal amounts to coercive recovery.
The amount adjusted from the total refund sanctioned to the assessee is refundable to the assessee at the rate of 12% per annum computed from the date of deposit till the date of its refund, stated the bench.