The court held that tax liability was fixed at the time of auction completion, prior to GST implementation. Delayed payment could not shift the applicable tax regime.
The constitutional validity of Section 232B and the proviso to Section 180(2) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 was upheld while setting aside specific retrospective tax notices issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation(KMC) to a property owner as they neither suffer from manifest arbitrariness nor violate Articles 14, 19 or 300A.
Paragraph 27AA of the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) Scheme could not be automatically imposed on establishments exempted under Section 17 of the EPF Act unless the Appropriate Government issued a specific official notification modifying the conditions of such exemption.
The case examined whether reassessment approval beyond three years was issued by the competent authority. The court held that approval by an unauthorized officer invalidates the proceedings and set aside the notice.
The case examined whether interest earned on temporarily parked funds is taxable. The court held that funds earmarked for asset acquisition are not surplus, and interest must be treated as capital receipt.
The court examined whether interest on FDRs could be taxed as other income. It held that where funds are linked to a project, the interest retains its project nexus and is not separately taxable.
The court examined whether interest on share capital parked temporarily could be taxed. It held that where funds are directly linked to project setup, the interest is a capital receipt and not taxable as other income.
The Court examined whether tax authorities can issue a single order for multiple years. It held that composite orders are invalid and directed separate orders for each year.
The petitioner alleged denial of hearing and cross-examination. The Court ruled that no such violation was established at this stage and deferred such issues to appropriate proceedings.
The case examined whether reassessment proceedings were valid when approval was obtained from an incorrect authority. The Court held the sanction invalid as it did not comply with statutory requirements, rendering the reassessment void. The ruling highlights strict adherence to approval hierarchy in reopening cases.
