Gemological Institute of America Inc. Vs Add. CIT (ITAT Mumbai) Conclusion: In terms of the provisions of section 92CE, refund of taxes could be claimed or allowed on account of secondary adjustments- even if, such secondary adjustments end up reducing the income of the foreign AE assesses as a result of partial repatriation of income. […]
Submission of additional statement of facts providing further disclosure would invalidate the original application as assessee had not filed the application with true and full disclosure. There was reason to believe that assessee had not approached the Settlement Commission with clean hands and thus, Settlement Commission had committed an error apparent and allowed the application filed by assessee in violation of the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
In the absence of exhausting appellate remedies by assessee, the High Court was losing the benefit of deciding the classification of product “Herbal Sherbat Granules” on merits as High Court could not conduct a trial or examine the original records in the writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the Courts should not provide an unnecessary opportunity to assessee to escape from the liability merely on the ground on jurisdictional error, which was rectifiable.
Exemption notification has to be interpreted stricto sensu. No external aids can be brought in to interpret an exemption notification. If assessees, who claim benefit of exemption notification, fail to fulfil any one of the conditions contained therein, the benefit cannot be extended.
Watanmal Boolchand & Co. Ltd. Vs Assistant Director of Income Tax (Madras High Court) Conclusion: Reassessment against a Hongkong-based company, Watanmal Boolchand was justified as there was a prima facie the case of ‘Business Connection’ of assessee-company in India. Held: Assessee-company was incorporated outside India under the laws of Hong Kong. One of the group […]
The respective authorities was restrained from declaring Company as a defaulter under the SVLDR Scheme and from from taking any coercive action against the Directors, Officials of company as the Income Tax department did not release the refund due to assessee and therefore, assessee could not pay the amount determined by the Designated Committee under the SVLDRS.
Service Providers in Telecom Sector” meant and included only the Telecom Service Providers of services mentioned therein. The ambit and scope of such exclusion was not of Service Providers who render services to such Telecom Service Providers. Though, a similar list was not appended to FTP or HBPv1, there was no reason for a different interpretation to be placed to FTP 2015-20. Clearly, what was made ineligible for availing benefit of SEIS in terms of paragraph 3.09(2)(i) were the Telecom Service Providers and not the Service Providers who provide services to such Telecom Sector.
Bhupendra Harilal Mehta Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Bombay High Court) Conclusion: Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas (DTVSV) Act, 2020 was a beneficial legislation and department could not deny the benefit if assesee was eligible for the same. Thus, department had to pass a fresh order in Form No.3 determining tax payable by assessee as […]
Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. Vs Union of India (Madras High Court) Conclusion: Once a resolution plan was duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the […]
Tatia Sky Line & Health Farms Ltd. Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) Conclusion: Expenses incurred by assessee for Public Issue was not allowable as revenue expenditure as assessee miserably failed to establish the tenability and truthfulness of its claim that the expenditure was revenue in nature. Held: Assessee, a public limited company, was in the […]
