Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram
Tax Updates - TMI e-Newsletters

Home e-Newsletters Index Year 2023 January Day 2 - Monday

TMI e-Newsletters FAQ
You need to Subscribe a package.

Newsletter: Where Service Meets Reader Approval.

TMI Tax Updates - e-Newsletter
January 2, 2023

Case Laws in this Newsletter:

GST Income Tax Customs Corporate Laws Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Indian Laws



Articles


Notifications


Circulars / Instructions / Orders


Highlights / Catch Notes

    GST

  • Provisional attachment of bank account of the petitioner - Period of limitation - it is evident that both the provisional attachment orders dated 02.12.2019 and 08.12.2021 have spent their force. Such provisional attachment orders cannot therefore be allowed to continue beyond the period prescribed under the statute. - HC

  • Validity of assessment order - The fact of issuance of notice in Form GST-DRC-01 dated 14.1.2022 is clearly mentioned at internal page 12 of the impugned assessment order but the petitioner has neither filed copy of the aforesaid show cause notice nor disclosed it in the writ petition nor disputed the finding of fact recorded in the impugned order regarding issuance of said notice and affording of opportunity of personal hearing to him. - The petitioner has concealed material facts of the case which also dis-entitles him to any relief in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. - HC

  • Input Tax Credit - GST charged by service provider on canteen facility provided to employees working in factory - they have been discharging GST on the canteen charges recovered from contract employees - the ITC on GST charged by the canteen service provider will be available only to the extent of cost borne by the appellant, for providing the canteen services only to its direct employees. - AAAR

  • Income Tax

  • Penalty u/s. 271DA - deposit of cash in the bank account of the assessee, directly by the party, at a different location - Considering the nature of business of the assessee and one of such transaction of deposit of cash by a party to a remote location in the bank account of assessee against huge sales volume, we direct to delete the penalty impose d u/s. 271DA of the Act. - AT

  • Addition made u/s.50C in respect of transfer of leasehold rights in land and building - When there is no provision in the Act to substitute Full value of consideration for computing Capital gain during the relevant point of time, then there is no scope for the AO to modify the full value of consideration without bringing any material on record which would compel such modification. - AT

  • Income of salary earned by the assessee in USA to tax in India - ‘resident alien’ in USA - There is nothing before us to contradict the findings of the learned CIT(A) in respect of the tie breaker test, inasmuch as mere securing a house on rent in USA is not the conclusive fact that the assessee had become an USA resident the moment he moved from India to USA. - AT

  • Royalty Payment - TDS on remittance to University of Cambridge, UK, which is for examination fee, books purchased and teacher’s training fee - the payment made by assessee was not in the nature of “royalty” as claimed by revenue-authorities and hence does not attract TDS - AT

  • Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Deduction u/s 54 - The mere delay on the part of the developer to hand over the possession of the flat would not vitiate the claim of the assessee since it would be beyond the control of the assessee to ensure timely acquisition of the flat. The provisions of Sec.54F are beneficial provisions and the same should be given effect to in full and could not be denied to the assessee on such technicalities. Therefore, we would hold that the assessee would be eligible for deduction u/s 54F. - AT

  • Revision u/s 263 by CIT - addition were made u/s 69 and 69C - ld PCIT has stated that the AO has not applied the rate of tax as per section 115BBE, what he meant was rate of tax of 60% given that the AO has already applied rate of tax of 30% as so submitted by the assessee. - where the AO has erred in not applying the rate of tax as per the amended law as applicable for the impugned assessment year and the order so passed is therefore rightly held by the ld PCIT as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. - AT

  • Customs

  • Levy of penalty u/s 114 - corroborative evidences like statements of the co-noticees - it is clear that the statements of a person made under Section 108 of the Act 1962 should not and cannot be construed as a statement of a co-accused, for when a Customs Officer records a statement under that sections of the Act, he does not act as a Police Officer, but he merely acts as a Revenue Officer, whose duty is to find out whether or not there is an evasion of customs duty in a particular transaction. - HC

  • Levy of Customs Duty - loss of the cargo on account of the super cyclone - If the goods themselves were not available on account of the super cyclone, it is inconceivable how the PPT could be made liable to pay customs duty on such goods under Section 45(3) of the Act which applies only in a situation where imported goods are “pilfered after unloading”. There is absolutely no material to come to the conclusion that the aforementioned goods not cleared by MESCO were ‘pilfered’. - HC

  • Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - Classification of imported goods - Aluminium Profile - It is not the case of Revenue that the appellants had mis-declared the goods with an intent to evade payment of duty. Since, Section 111(m) ibid provides for confiscation of the goods in the eventuality of misdeclaration of the goods, which are absent in the present case, the redemption fine and penalty cannot be imposed on the appellants. - AT

  • Valuation of imported goods - contemporaneous data of imports - rejection of declared value - the assessable value in these Bills of Entry were given in Rupees whereas the declared values in the Bill of Entry are in US dollars. It is not clear of what rate of exchange is applied to convert rupees into dollars to re-determine the assessable value under Rule 5. - The rejection of the transaction value by the Deputy Commissioner is not in accordance with law. Consequently, its re-determination under Rule 5 cannot also sustain - AT

  • Corporate Law

  • Jurisdiction of civil court / NCLT - appropriate forum for the adjudication of the disputes - The fundamental principle behind the bar on the jurisdiction of the civil court is that the there must adequacy of remedy being available to the parties who are relegated out of the civil Courts and they must not be rendered remediless. - This Court does not find any merit in the objection of the Respondents that the subsequent liquidation of TCL will have no bearing on the present case. No corporate entity now exists in the form of TCL which may be governed by the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. Hence, it cannot be said that the suit filed by the plaintiff companies was barred under Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013. - HC

  • Indian Laws

  • Validity of revision / enhancement of the property tax - Non-deployment of revenue sources only leads to the denial of proper infrastructure and facilities to the citizens and the enhancement in property tax rates is only a move forward in that direction - The impugned GO, CR and Notification do make reference to the recommendations of the Central Finance Commission. However, such references do not, in my considered view, dilute the proposal for enhancement as the need for such enhancement has been made out by the State, de hors the recommendations of the Central Finance Commission. The admitted position that there has been no enhancement of property tax for the last nearly three decades would itself suffice to justify a proposal for enhancement now - HC

  • Service Tax

  • Exemption from Service Tax - The exemption which was earlier granted in the public interest was withdrawn in the public interest - Whether public interest existed or not in withdrawing the exemption is not justiciable unless it is found that such withdrawal was vitiated on account of malafide, extraneous consideration or arbitration. High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over the decision of the Government to withdraw a Notification or an exemption. It is further a policy decision of the Government to withdraw the exemption. - HC

  • Rejection of refund claim - finalization of provisional assessment - relevant date - it is only when the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order on 17.10.2012 that the refund could be claimed by the appellant. The provisions of clause B (ec) and not (eb) of the Explanation to section 11B of the Excise Act would be attracted to the facts of the present case - the assessment can be said to have been finalized only when the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order and for this reason also the relevant date would be 17.10.2012 and not 13.07.2012. - AT

  • Central Excise

  • Recovery of Central Excise Duty alongwith interest and penalty - landowners - As far as dues of the Central Excise are concerned, they were not related to the said plant and machinery or the land and building and thus did not arise out of those properties. Dues of the Excise Department became payable on the manufacturing of excisable items by the erstwhile owner, therefore, these statutory dues are in respect of those items produced and not the plant and machinery which was used for the purposes of manufacture. - HC

  • VAT

  • The proper remedy for the petitioner would be to avail the remedy of Appeal in terms of Section 33 of the VAT Act. The material on record shows that the petitioner did not file the Appeal on the ground that filing of Appeal would make him to deposit 25% of the disputed tax. This cannot be a ground to file a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, before this Court. - HC


Case Laws:

  • GST

  • 2022 (12) TMI 1370
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1369
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1368
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1367
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1366
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1365
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1364
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1363
  • Income Tax

  • 2022 (12) TMI 1362
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1361
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1360
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1359
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1358
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1357
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1356
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1355
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1354
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1353
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1352
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1351
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1350
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1349
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1348
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1347
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1346
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1345
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1344
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1343
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1342
  • Customs

  • 2022 (12) TMI 1341
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1340
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1339
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1338
  • Corporate Laws

  • 2022 (12) TMI 1337
  • Service Tax

  • 2022 (12) TMI 1336
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1335
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1334
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1333
  • Central Excise

  • 2022 (12) TMI 1332
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1331
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1330
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax

  • 2022 (12) TMI 1329
  • 2022 (12) TMI 1328
  • Indian Laws

  • 2022 (12) TMI 1327
 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates