The Supreme Court recently addressed the imposition of an incorrect surcharge on the petitioner’s income tax liability. The case arose from a demand made by the Central Processing Centre ( CPC ) for Assessment Year ( AY ) 2022-2023, where the petitioner was charged a surcharge of ₹2.01 crore on an income of ₹1.57 crore, which led to a dispute.
The Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition, noting that the issue for AY 2022-2023 had been resolved. However, it directed the Revenue to withdraw the incorrect surcharge for AY 2023-2024 within six weeks and urged the Central Board of Direct Taxes ( CBDT ) to take necessary steps to rectify the software to avoid similar errors in the future.
The Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India confirmed the decision of the High Court of Kerala upholding the Income Tax levying on compensation for relinquishing Trusteeship. Because the consideration received for this relinquishment cannot be classified as a capital receipt for capital gains assessment.
Upon which the Petitioner, Jose Thomas filed a special leave petition in Supreme Court of India against the decision of the High Court of Kerala. Upon hearing the counsel, the Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar ruled that “In the interest of justice, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and, hence, the special leave petitions are dismissed”. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
The Madras High Court set aside a GST demand order under Section 73(9) of the TNGST (Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax) /CGST (Central Goods and Service Tax) Acts, 2017 due to the rejection of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) reply without providing adequate reasons, violating principles of natural justice, and directed the respondent to pass a fresh order, addressing each of the grounds raised by the petitioner.
The court set aside the order dated April 29, 2024, and directed the respondent to pass a fresh order, addressing each of the grounds raised by the petitioner. The court ordered the new decision to be made within eight weeks, with no costs awarded. Connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.
In a recent case, the Orissa High Court has held that tractor trolly fall under section 2 (h) of the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 ( OEA ) and are amenable to entry tax.
A division bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice M S Sahoo while allowing appeal held that “There is no dispute that product manufactured by petitioner does not have a motor. As such, it can only find meaning as given for ‘vehicle’, by section 2(28) in Motor Vehicles Act. 1988. Section 2(h) in Entry Tax Act, 1999 defines ‘motor vehicle’. There is no definition of ‘vehicle’ in that Act.”
In a recent case before Allahabad High Court a writ petition was disposed of directing the department to furnish all documents mentioned in the Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) with respect to cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner.
The bench of Allahabad High Court comprising Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Brij Raj Singh observed that inorder to protect the interest of petitioner the opposite party shall submit all documents referred in the SCN within 10 days of the order. The petitioner on receipt of such document shall submit a reply within 10 days.Thereafter the competent authority shall consider the reply and pass a reasoned and speaking order within 2 weeks of such submission. Hence the writ was disposed of.
In a recent case before Jharkhand High Court an appeal is disposed of ruling against the clubbing of clearance values of proprietorship and Pvt Ltd Company for the purpose Excise Duty Assessment.
After considering the impugned order and taking into consideration the matter whether value of clearances of MM and MMPL are to be clubbed for determining Central Excise duty payable as MMPL should be remitted before the tribunal for passing order afresh on consideration of the relevant documents which are available on record. Therefore the appeal was disposed of and the appellate authority was directed to decide on the appeal [preferably within 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of order.
The Madras High Court quashed an ex-parte income tax assessment order, stating that the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax had passed a non-speaking order mechanically, without considering the petitioner’s submissions and judgments, and further held that the order was unsustainable due to a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Justice Krishnan Ramaswamy ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the second respondent to dispose of the appeal within six weeks. In the interim, all recovery actions related to the impugned order are to remain. The writ petition was allowed, and associated miscellaneous petitions were closed without costs.
The Kerala High Court has ruled that the Income Tax Department is competent to seek interim custody of currency notes seized during searches and seizures, pending the completion of assessment or trial.
The court further noted that, while the authorities can seek interim custody of the currency, they are bound to return the money to the accused if the proceedings are not completed within six months, as per the law. However, the court found that any direction for disbursement or appropriation of the money before the conclusion of the trial or assessment is premature and should be addressed only under Section 452 of the CrPC, which deals with the final disposal of seized property.
The Delhi High Court upheld the penalty imposed on Container Corporation of India ( CONCOR ) for its role as a custodian of goods, which included branded liquor that was found in addition to the declared goods.
The Division Bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja specifically observed that CONCOR’s responsibility under Section 45(3) of the Customs Act and Regulation 6 of HCCAR, 2009, mandates that the custodian is liable to pay customs duty for any pilfered goods while under its custody. It was also remarked that the replacement of the original customs seal without permission further indicated lapses in securing the goods.
Thus, the court dismissed CONCOR’s appeal, upholding both the customs duty demand and the penalty imposed by the Tribunal.
While dismissing the petition, the Madras High Court ordered the Income Tax Department to review the replies filed by the petitioner-assessee to determine the prosecution viability on the belated remittance of TDS ( Tax deduction at source ).
The Court ruled that it was up to the department to review the replies and decide on prosecution. It directed the department to determine the prosecution viability by considering the replies. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed.
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition for quashing the recovery order issued by the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) department issued without providing hearing as the assessee missed two opportunities given earlier . The court directed to file an appeal before the appropriate forum.
However, recognizing the petitioner’s claim that the appeal period had expired, the Court allowed an additional 30 days from the date of receiving the order for the petitioner to file an appeal. The authorities were directed to accept the appeal without insisting on the limitation period, provided the appeal was otherwise in order.
The Madras High Court ruled that work contracts undertaken prior to 11.05.2002, the said work contracts cannot be brought under the purview of the tax net under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
Citing decisions in Sundaram Industries Limited vs. Commercial Tax Officer, the Court noted that the amendment’s impact was prospective, not retroactive, meaning that work contracts executed before the amendment could not be retrospectively taxed under the revised provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act.
Justices R Suresh Kumar and C. Saravanan concluded that the work contracts undertaken by the petitioner before 11.05.2002 could not be subjected to tax under the amended provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act.
A GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) appeal cannot be rejected solely on the ground of failure to upload the soft copy due to technical glitches as it is beyond the control of the assessee, ruled the Madras High Court. It granted an opportunity for hearing.
The court set aside the impugned order, allowing the petitioner an additional opportunity to file the appeal. The petitioner was directed to submit the appeal manually and upload the soft copy within 30 days from the date of the court order. The court further instructed the appellate authority to accept the appeal without enforcing the limitation period, provided the other conditions were met.
The Madras High Court has revoked the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration, noting that the petitioner had provided evidence of timely submission of monthly returns. The Court noted a procedural lapse by the department, which failed to take into account the submitted proof of filings before issuing the cancellation order.
The court noted that the petitioner had faced genuine difficulties due to medical issues and had taken steps to comply with GST filing requirements. The court observed that the respondent-department’s failure to consider the petitioner’s proof of filing constituted a procedural lapse. The writ petition is disposed of.
In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court has held that the appellate authority is competent to decide questions of jurisdiction against GST orders.
In disposing of the writ petition, the Telangana High Court underlined the importance of utilising the statutory remedy available under the CGST Act. It observed that the appellate authority, upon appeal, would be competent to decide the issue of jurisdiction in accordance with the law. The court also provided a reprieve by stating that the time spent in pursuing the writ petition would not be counted towards the limitation period for filing the appeal. Thus, the court upheld the principle that the appellate authority is the appropriate judicial forum to decide jurisdictional issues under GST law.
The Delhi High Court has held that a Permanent Establishment (PE) should be taxed as an independent entity, regardless of the global financial performance of the enterprise to which the PE belongs.
This judgement has significant implications for foreign enterprises operating in India through PEs. It clarifies that Indian tax authorities are entitled to tax the income generated by a PE in India, even if the parent company incurs losses globally. The PE is thus seen as an independent taxable entity within the Indian tax framework. The decision reaffirms that the activities of the PE in India should be considered separately for tax purposes, reflecting the entity’s economic activities in India rather than the consolidated global financial results.
In a recent judgement, The Delhi High Court ruled that rental income from a factory building is classified as income from house property and is eligible for deductions under Section 24 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Thus the division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Yaswanth Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja, concluded that no substantial question of law was presented in this case. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.
The Madras High Court, in general, has commented on the frequent adjournments of the matters for filing counter affidavits from time to time by the counsels of the income tax department. In contract, the court appreciated Dr. B.Ramaswamy, Senior Standing Counsel for filing counter affidavit on time.
He urged standing counsels to be prompt in filing affidavits and to avoid seeking adjournments, stressing that doing so would save judicial time and help dispose of more cases efficiently. The court also called on the Income Tax Department to cooperate with their counsels to ensure timely filings.
Recently in a ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court quashed the Revenue’s denial of a university’s application for income tax exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( ITA ), observing that the authorities failed to adequately prove the said university’s profit status to have denied such a request.
The court, therefore, set aside the decisions of both the Commissioner and the ITAT and remitted the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal, for fresh consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling. The High Court instructed the Commissioner to complete the reassessment within two months, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the application itself. In result, the petition was allowed.
The Patna High Court has ruled that the demand order under Section 73(10) of the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Act must be issued within three years from the filing date of the annual return and not the extended due date.
The court granted an interim stay on the GST assessment order and directed that any counter affidavits be filed within three weeks. The matter has been postponed to October 26th 2024 for further consideration.
The Delhi High Court recently granted bail to businessman Amandeep Singh Dhall, who was implicated in the Delhi Excise Policy case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act ( PMLA ), 2002.
The Delhi High Court Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna noted that the purpose of pre-trial detention is not punitive and that Dhall had already been in custody for a considerable period, while the trial was expected to take a significant amount of time due to the voluminous evidence involved. Hence, a prolonged incarceration was seen as unjustifiable.
Recently in a notable ruling, the Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, quashed show cause notices demanding service tax from a university on income earned through affiliation fees. The court ruled that income from affiliation is not subject to service tax, setting a precedent for educational institutions across the state.
As a result, the Court issued a Writ of Certiorari, formally annulling the show cause notices dated March 29, 2018, and July 22, 2019, thus providing full relief to the assessee. The court’s ruling is expected to have widespread implications for universities and educational institutions, reinforcing that affiliation fees do not fall under the ambit of service tax.
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court quashed an adverse GST order against an assessee observing a violation of the GST Act’s provisions regarding fair hearings.
The court further ordered the assessee to deposit 10% of the disputed tax demand within four weeks and remanded the matter back to the State Tax Officer for reconsideration. The assessee-company was instructed to submit its reply within two weeks of receiving the court’s order, after which the authorities were required to send a physical notice with at least 14 days’ notice for the next hearing. In result, the appeal was dismissed.
The Delhi High Court in a recent decision, quashed a Show-Cause Notice ( SCN ) issued against Infiniti Retail Ltd. ( Infiniti ), a subsidiary of Tata Group. The SCN was quashed on the basis of the Revenue’s absolute reliance on its own Audit Report, overlooking all counter-submissions made by the Petitioner.
Additionally, the Delhi High Court while disposing of the Petition provided the Petitioner the liberty to file all the required documents to contest the demands while reiterating that the Audit Report/Audit Memo shall not further prejudice the adjudication of the impugned SCN.
In a relief to Alukkas Jewellers, the Madras High Court ruled that the Income Tax Settlement Commission had no authority to rectify its orders under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (ITA) before the 2011 amendment that granted such power. The Court held that the rectification made by the Settlement Commission in 2003, pertaining to the jeweler’s tax liabilities, was beyond its jurisdiction and thus invalid.
Delivering the judgment, the bench declared that the Settlement Commission’s rectification in 2003 was without jurisdiction, as the legal provision allowing such actions was only introduced in 2011. The Court held that any rectification made before this amendment was invalid and quashed the impugned order. In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal of the assessee.
The Gauhati High Court in a recent matter before it held that any Demand Order passed beyond the permissible limitation period under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) provisions is unsustainable in law.
In light of the observations made, the Gauhati High Court proceeded to quash the impugned Demand Order passed by the Revenue Department citing the lack of jurisdiction and statutory assent exercisable by the Revenue Department to file a delayed Demand Order under Section 73(9) of the the CGST Act and Assam GST Act.
In a recent decision, the Madras High Court has directed a widow to deposit ₹2.5 lakh as pre-deposit against a demand of ₹57.7 lakh raised by the Income Tax Department. The court did not support the decision of the department directing the widow to deposit 20% as she is already going through a financial crisis.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, considering the petitioner-widow’s financial hardship and the fact that she is a widow, found it reasonable to reduce the required deposit and directed the petitioner to pay ₹2.5 lakh instead of the original 20%. The court granted the petitioner four weeks to make the payment and instructed the tax authorities to stay the recovery of the remaining tax demand until the appeal is resolved.
The court upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) to delete the disallowance of short-term capital loss claimed by M/s Agnus Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, citing the applicability of the Central Board of Direct Taxes ( CBDT ) circular that sets a monetary limit for filing appeals.
In result, the division bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising Mrs. Justice S. Sujatha and Mr. Justice Ravi V. Hosmani dismissed the revenue’s appeal, concluding that the Tribunal decision was in line with judicial precedents and applicable legal principles. This ruling stresses the impact of the CBDT’s monetary limit circular on tax appeals. Moreover, the judgment highlights that tax authorities must carefully assess the merit of appeals before pursuing litigation, especially when the underlying issues have already been settled by earlier decisions that are no longer challengeable.
In a recent case, the Gujarat High Court criticized the GST authorities over their failure to comply with two years old guidelines issued in Aggrawal Dyeing & Printing vs. State of Gujarat (2022) for issuance of reasoned show cause notices ( SCN ) for cancellation of GST registration.
The Division bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia & Justice Niral R. Mehta quashed the cancellation of registration and remanded the matter back for reconsideration. It was clarified that registration of the petitioner shall remain suspended till SCN is decided by the Assessing Officer as per timeline fixed by the High Court.
The Delhi High Court observed that the defendant cannot compel plaintiff to summon and examine his Chartered Accountant as such actions related to this such as production of audited balance-sheets, tax audit reports and ledger accounts does not seem to be relevant in context of the present suit.
Judge Manoj Jain held that based on the above observations, this court does not find any reason, much less a plausible one, to interfere with the impugned order while also keeping in mind the narrow scope of appreciation while dealing with any petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.
The Karnataka High Court remanded a case pertaining to Service Tax Exemptions available on the supply of Auto-Tippers and Manpower for Garbage Collection back to the post show-cause notice (SCN) stage citing lack of jurisdiction to ascertain the same.
In light of the Delhi High Court’s identification of its lack of jurisdiction to adjudicate on a matter of fact and not of law, the matter was remanded back to the stage post show cause notice.
Additionally, the Petitioner was directed to draft a comprehensive reply, consisting of all necessary documents that would enable the Adjudicating Authority to make a well thought out decision on whether the activities rendered by the Petitioner would be exempt from Service Tax as per the Notification No. 25/2012- Service Tax.
In a recent case before High Court of Punjab and Haryana the deductions claimed under section 80-I of the Income Tax Act were allowed upon the conversion of Proprietorship Concern to Private Limited Company.
The division bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjay Vashisth observed that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 80-I and the consequent benefit of deduction for the unexpired period. The Appeals were Allowed.
The Bombay High Court, in the case of Volvo Group India Pvt Ltd and Siemens Ltd, is set to examine whether filing a declaration and maintaining an input-output ratio is a pre-condition for claiming an excise rebate on exported goods.
It noted that excise rebate claims fall under the purview of Section 35EE and do not necessitate prior declaration or specific ratio filings unless mandated under specific circumstances. The matter is now set for further hearings to deliberate on the substantive merits of the rebate claims.
In a recent case before the Delhi High Court, the GST demand order was set aside owing to the inaccessibility of the Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) on the GST portal.
The court also directed the petitioner to reply to the SCN along with relevant documents. The adjudicating authority will then consider the same and pass an appropriate order after allowing the petitioner to be heard.
In a recent case, the Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the reassessment proceedings initiated without conducting Faceless Assessment under section 144B of Income Tax Act,1996.
Keeping in view above, the division bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash sharma and Justice Sanjay vashisth allowed the Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case.
Further set aside the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequential proceedings are set aside.
In a recent case, the Court held that in the absence of a valid order of assessment and demand for income-tax, the party from whom the amount is seized, is entitled to seek interim custody. Section 132A of the Income Tax Act ,1961 says that if any officer or any authority has taken into custody any asset of a person which is not or would not have been disclosed for the purpose of Income Tax Act, the income tax authority can require the officer or authority to deliver such asset to the income tax authority.
The Court further stated that as per Section 132B of the Act, the authorities can apply the money requisitioned not only for the existing liabilities but also any liabilities determined on completion of assessment or reassessment or recomputation and also the assessment of year relevant to the previous year in which the requisition is made.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court stated that GST authorities cannot bypass the procedural safeguards under the GST Act by directly invoking IPC provisions without first applying the penal provisions of the GST Act.
The Division Bench of Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Duppala Venkata Ramana observed that GST Act, 2017 is a special legislation which holistically deals with procedure, penalties and offences relating GST and at the cost of repetition this court cannot emphasise more that the GST Authorities cannot be permitted to bypass procedure for launching prosecution under GST Act, 2017 and invoke provisions of Indian Penal Code only without pressing into service penal provisions from GST Act and that too without obtaining sanction from commissioner under Section 132(6) of GST Act especially when the alleged actions squarely fall within the precincts of offence as enumerated under GST Act, 2017. In view of the above, the bench allowed the petition.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court in a recent ruling held that interest for late filing of income tax returns can be waived in situations where the delay was beyond the control of assessee.
In view of the above, the bench allowed the writ petition in part, waived the interest under Section 234-A of the Income Tax Act, and rejected the waiver of interest under Sections 234-B and 234-C of the Income Tax Act.
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that benefit under section 12 AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is allowable to an institute registered as an educational trust which using its earnings solely for educational advancement.
The division bench of Justices Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Sanjay Vashisth observed that the institute is a duly registered educational trust and whatever earnings it receives are also utilised for the purpose of advancement of education, the institution could not have been denied the benefit of Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act and dismissed the appeal. Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides that the trusts and institutions engaged in charitable activities can apply for registration to claim tax exemptions and deductions.
The Delhi High Court held that Rule 86A of State and Central Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Rules, 2017 should be interpreted literally, which limits the blocking of Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) to the amount available in the ECL at the time the order is passed.
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Sachin Dutta held that Rule 86A of State and Central Goods and Services Tax Rules should be interpreted literally, which limits the blocking of ITC to the amount available in the ECL at the time the order is passed.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court in a recent case observed that fees collected by the agricultural market committee for its services are not tax and dismissed the writ petition alleging double taxation on sale of ‘Basmati rice’.
While dismissing the petition the single bench of Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao held that levy of tax is for the purposes of general revenue which when collected forms part of the public revenue of the State, that a fee is generally defined to be a charge for a special service rendered to individuals by some Governmental agency.
The Patna High Court has ruled that the reply date of the taxpayer cannot be treated as service of GST MOV-07 notice. The court quashed the penalty order issued under GST ( Good and Services Tax ) which was issued beyond the 7 – day limit violating Section 129(3) of the GST Act after the service of MOV-07 notice.
The High Court found the impugned penalty order unsustainable due to the delay in compliance with Section 129(3) of the CGST Act. It set aside the order and directed the refund of the amounts paid by the petitioner.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court ordered an interim stay on the Income Tax notice issued without following the automated allocation which violated the Central Board of Direct Taxes ( CBDT )’s Faceless Scheme.
In light of the above observation, the Himachal Pradesh High Court ordered an interim stay of all proceedings of the impugned notice issued to the petitioner till the next hearing on 24.10.2024.
The Madras High Court has quashed a reassessment order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration in a case involving denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on zero-rated sales under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TNVAT) Act, 2006.
Justice C. Saravanan, after considering the arguments, sent the case back to the respondent, quashing the Impugned Re-assessment Order, and instructed them to issue a fresh order within 8 weeks, based on the Division Bench’s decision and the facts of this case.The petitioner was asked to submit a detailed response, providing details of the Zero Rated Sales for which Input Tax Credit was claimed. Accordingly, the case was disposed of.
The Bombay High Court has directed the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise ( CX ) to recover interest from the salaries or retirement benefits of officers responsible for the non-renewal of fixed deposits ( FDs ) arising from seized cash during an investigation.
The High Court of Bombay also directed the Commissioner of GST and CX to initiate an inquiry into the non-renewal of the FDs after 10 years and take appropriate action against the officers found negligent. This could include recovering the lost interest from the salary or retirement benefits of the responsible individuals.
The Himachal High Court in a recent case held that no legal proceedings could be instituted by tax dept on property of corporate debtors once liquidated by the National Company Law Tribunal ( NCLT ) under section 33(5) of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code ( IBC ). The High Court clarified that the red entry/charge created by the Revenue Department on the property of the petitioner-company during the currency of the moratorium imposed by the NCLT, would be void in law.
While allowing the petition, the court directed the fourth respondent to remove its charge/red entries/ claim for the tax dues of the erstwhile management of the first petitioner company on the properties of the said petitioner from the revenue record.
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court set aside the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) order issued against the deceased person by the State Tax Officer. On condition, the tribunal granted the legal heir a fresh opportunity to present the case.
The court lifted the attachment on the petitioner’s bank account, instructing the bank to release the freeze upon proof of payment of the 10% tax amount. The writ petition of the petitioner was disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.
In a recent case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that circular or instructions by Central Board of Direct Taxes ( CBDT ) could not have been issued to override the provisions under Income Tax Act, 1961.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma And Justice Sanjay Vashisth It was found that the issuance of notice was contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961 and set aside the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In a recent judgment, the Madras High Court ruled that an assessee is entitled to claim the benefit of the Section 10B deduction under the Income Tax Act, 1961, even before the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation and brought-forward losses from prior years. This decision came in the case of a semiconductor manufacturing entity, which had contested the disallowance of its Section 10B deduction by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) for the assessment year 2008-09.
The court observed that the ITAT had, in the appellant’s own case for the prior assessment year, ruled similarly, making it inconsistent for the tribunal to now reverse its position. Furthermore, the High Court noted that while a batch of appeals related to similar issues was pending before the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Hewlett Packard Global Soft Ltd., the matter had not yet been settled definitively. Despite this, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, asserting that as things currently stand, the law supports the appellant’s right to claim the Section 10B deduction before any set-off of unabsorbed depreciation or brought-forward losses. In result, the Court quashed the ITAT’s order and restored the appellant’s entitlement to the deduction under Section 10B of ITA.
The Delhi High Court recently remanded the retrospective cancellation of GST registration of a petitioner in a challenge to the cancellation of his GST registration with retrospective effect, asserting that he had not been given sufficient opportunity to respond before the cancellation was executed.
The Bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Sachin Datta set aside the cancellation order and allowed the petitioner to submit a fresh response, directing the tax authorities to reconsider the case after providing a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.
The Madras High Court has condoned the delay in a GST matter involving mismatch in Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) in GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A. The appeal was rejected on ground that the delay was beyond the condonable period.
The contested GST order was set aside by the bench. It condoned the delay in filing the appeal, and directed the department to accept the appeal, issue a notice, provide an opportunity for personal hearing, and issue a final order within three months.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
