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 October Day 18 - Wednesday

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

Newsletter: Where Service Meets Reader Approval.

TMI Tax Updates - e-Newsletter
October 18, 2023

Case Laws in this Newsletter:

GST Income Tax Customs Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Indian Laws



Highlights / Catch Notes

    GST

  • Refund of excess amount paid by mistake - time limitation - relevant date - removal of defects - keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has filed the refund application within a period of two years i.e on 18.10.2019, his second application dated 05.11.2019 after removing the deficiency, could not have been rejected on the ground that it was time barred. - HC

  • Income Tax

  • Disallowance of salary u/s 40A(2)(b) - Payment of salary and interest to specified (related) persons - The provision u/s 40A(2)(a) clearly shows that before recording disallowance, AO has to form an opinion; and that opinion has to be having regard to inter alia legitimate needs of the business or benefit derived or even what would be the fair payment outgo for services rendered. Such an opinion cannot be arrived at without adducing necessary evidence - HC

  • Compounding of offence(s) - determination of compounding fee - first occasion - 5% or 3% of the amount of tax in default - Since a common application had been filed for the aforementioned FYs for the first time, it would fall within the expression “first occasion”, as indicated in the guidelines for compounding of offences under Direct Tax Laws, 2019. - the compounding fee should have been calculated at the rate of 3%, and not at 5% - HC

  • Territorial Jurisdiction of Madras High Court against TP Adjustment - AO at Hyderabad have issued the order - this tax case appeal cannot be maintainable within the High Court of judicature at Madras, as the entire assessment proceedings including the final assessment order un/s 143(3) r/w section 92CA(3) r/w section 144C(5) of the Act, were done / completed by the authorities at Hyderabad and the amalgamation of the appellant company got approval from the Central Government only on 25.07.2017. - HC

  • Rectification u/s 154 - The ld. AR invited our attention in ITR 7 where it is mentioned that the correct figures in claim of section 11(1)(2) of the Act. The assessee submitted the Form No. 10 and modified Form where the rectification was done by the auditor. It is very clear that there is no mistake in the return of income but mistake was occurred in the audit report which was duly rectified by the said auditor. - AO directed to rectify the mistake - AT

  • Source of cash deposit during demonetization period - AO has not refuted or discredited these evidences and documents. AO does not mention why he is not accepting these evidences. On the contrary, the AO has just brushed aside these evidences without even a word on why they are not acceptable. It is a well settled Law that when an assessee has all the possible evidence in support of its claim, they cannot be brushed aside based on surmises. - Additions deleted - AT

  • Penalty u/s. 271D and u/s. 271E - taking and paying loan in Cash - the innocence pleaded on account of ignorance of law of Directors who are claimed to be non-resident is insignificant. There is no question of any benefit to the assessee company on the basis of claim of bona fides of the Directors. The provisions of Section 269SS and 269T of the Act imposed statutory liability and cannot be said to held to be mere technical violation in case of companies. - Levy of penalty confirmed - AT

  • Cash found during search from the residential premises of the appellant - Estimation of expenses is also without any basis. Hence the argument put forth by the CIT(A) that cash do not belong to the company and some expenses must have been incurred is not tenable and hence rejected. Owing to the availability of the cash in the accepted books of accounts of the company as well as accepted statement affairs filed by the family members, no further addition is required - AT

  • Addition u/s 68 - unexplained share capital received by the assessee - Even if the directors of the subscriber companies have not come personally in response to the summons issued by the AO, in our view, adverse inference cannot be taken against the assessee solely on this ground as it is not under control of the assessee to compel the personal presence of the directors of the shareholders before the AO. - AT

  • Revision u/s 263 by CIT - It is the duty of the AO to ascertain the truth of the facts stated / submitted by the assessee especially when the circumstances of the case are such as to provoke an inquiry and the word "erroneous" in section 263 includes the failure to make such an inquiry. - Yhere is lack of enquiry on the part of the AO as far as one leg of the transaction is concerned where assessee is claimed to be the conduit. - Revision order sustained - AT

  • Revision u/s 263 on Insurance business - in the original assessment the Assessing Officer has clearly segregated the Shareholders Account and Policyholders Account and made the disallowances treating income from Shareholders Account as not part of income from life insurance business of the assessee. CIT holding the order of re-assessment as erroneous for the reason that the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer has not been considered is not well-founded and is debatable. - Revision order quashed - AT

  • Deduction u/s 80IC - new industrial undertaking nor not - It is a fact on record that 1st export dispatch has taken on 05.05.2009. The old machinery has not been used as indicated by the invoices of the new machinery which was purchased from the third party. The evidences proves that it is a case where new plant & machinery has been acquired which was not previously used. Hence, the conditions for the eligibility of claim u/s 80IC in the case of a new industrial undertaking stands satisfied. Decided in favour of assessee. - AT

  • Determination of income - Commission income or trading activity - addition to the returned income by taking 8% net profit on turnover - in case the assessee would have rendered services as a commission agent then it would have merely acted as a facilitator and not carried out purchase/sale transactions on its own account. As the assessee had failed to substantiate its aforesaid claim of having rendered services merely in the capacity as that of a commission agent, therefore, the A.O in our considered view had rightly rejected its said claim. - AT

  • SEBI

  • Violation of Buyback Regulations and PFUTP Regulations 3 and 4 of the SEBI - There is nothing on record to indicate that the Company instructed the intermediaries to prefer one Stock Exchange over another. The Company utilized Rs. 1225.45 crores in the buyback process and in our view this is not a paltry sum to invest for a non-serious effort to buyback the shares. The above indicates that it cannot be conclusively proved that the Company showed no intent to successfully complete the buyback and there by acted fraudulently. - Violations are not proved against the Company - AT

  • VAT

  • Payment of tax at compounded rates - Levy of VAT / Tax on immovable property or works contract - The imposition of tax on the whole contract value, the State cannot be seen as imposing tax on the sale of immovable property; on the contrary, it has to be seen as levying tax on the works contract undertaken by the petitioner, albeit on a value that stood enhanced by the cost incurred for the completed construction. - HC

  • Levy of penalty on the petitioner being double the amount of tax allegedly evaded by the petitioner - No doubt, in circumstances where the gross profit estimated by the revenue authorities is significantly higher than what is conceded by the assessee, and it is apparent that the estimation itself was done in an unscientific manner, it may be open to an assessee to challenge the same inter alia based on the decisions mentioned. On the facts of the instant case, however, Tribunal order is reasonable accepting the additions made by AO - HC


Articles


Notifications


News


Case Laws:

  • GST

  • 2023 (10) TMI 715
  • 2023 (10) TMI 714
  • 2023 (10) TMI 713
  • Income Tax

  • 2023 (10) TMI 712
  • 2023 (10) TMI 711
  • 2023 (10) TMI 710
  • 2023 (10) TMI 709
  • 2023 (10) TMI 708
  • 2023 (10) TMI 707
  • 2023 (10) TMI 706
  • 2023 (10) TMI 705
  • 2023 (10) TMI 704
  • 2023 (10) TMI 703
  • 2023 (10) TMI 702
  • 2023 (10) TMI 701
  • 2023 (10) TMI 700
  • 2023 (10) TMI 699
  • 2023 (10) TMI 698
  • 2023 (10) TMI 697
  • 2023 (10) TMI 696
  • 2023 (10) TMI 695
  • 2023 (10) TMI 694
  • 2023 (10) TMI 693
  • 2023 (10) TMI 692
  • 2023 (10) TMI 691
  • 2023 (10) TMI 690
  • 2023 (10) TMI 689
  • 2023 (10) TMI 688
  • 2023 (10) TMI 687
  • 2023 (10) TMI 686
  • 2023 (10) TMI 685
  • Customs

  • 2023 (10) TMI 684
  • Securities / SEBI

  • 2023 (10) TMI 683
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy

  • 2023 (10) TMI 682
  • PMLA

  • 2023 (10) TMI 681
  • Service Tax

  • 2023 (10) TMI 680
  • 2023 (10) TMI 679
  • 2023 (10) TMI 678
  • Central Excise

  • 2023 (10) TMI 677
  • 2023 (10) TMI 676
  • 2023 (10) TMI 675
  • 2023 (10) TMI 674
  • 2023 (10) TMI 673
  • 2023 (10) TMI 672
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax

  • 2023 (10) TMI 671
  • 2023 (10) TMI 670
  • 2023 (10) TMI 669
  • 2023 (10) TMI 668
  • Indian Laws

  • 2023 (10) TMI 667
 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates