Direct Tax update from High Court.

·       Gujarat High court in the case of SWATIBEN BIHARILAL PAREKH held that settlement of dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act  and finalizing thereof is nothing but the closure of disputes in respect of tax arrears which cannot be subsequently reopened by issuing notice u/s 263 of the Act for revising the assessment order.

 

·       In the case of Jigar Jashwantlal Shah, the Gujarat High court held that Section 56(2)(viic) does not apply to fresh issuances or allotments of shares by a company.

·       Calcutta HC judgement in the case of PCIT vs Tata Medical Centre Trust (ITA No: 202/2023), which quashed the order u/s 263 on the grounds of non mentioning of DIN.

 

·       Karnataka High court in the case of I.G Petrochemicals held that waiver of loan is not income u/s 28.

 

·       Madras High court in the case of IDFC Ltd held that Department needs to produce new or tangible information to reopen cases under new Sec 147. 

 

·       Delhi High Court in the case of Biorad laboratories held that If make available clause as per DTAA between India and Singapore is not satisfied, managerial charges cannot be FTS. 

 

·       In the case of Shreyash retail, the Delhi HC held that rate of LDC cannot be provided at higher rates without application of mind.

 

·       In the case of Augustus Capital PTE Ltd, the Delhi HC held that Sec.9(1)(i)-Expl. 6 & 7 cure vagueness posed by prior retrospective amendments, hence, retrospective and not prospective.

 

·       Delhi HC in the case of Caraf builders held that disallowance u/s 14A r.w rule 8D cannot exceed exempt income.

 

·       Delhi HC held that a women can be “Karta” of HUF.

 

·       Delhi HC while addressing the issue of 263 in the case of KLAXON TRADING held that while exercising powers under Section 263 of the Act, the concerned officer is entitled to examine the entire record, which includes not only the assessment order but also the notices issued, queries raised, responses received, and the material/evidence placed on record by the assessee. In a nutshell, the record should disclose whether the AO had applied his mind to various facets that cropped up during the assessment proceedings. In other words, furnishing reasons in the assessment order is not the sine qua non of a sustainable assessment order. Courts have repeatedly stated that the AO is not required to give detailed reasons for accepting or not accepting a particular transaction. The record should reflect whether the AO applied his mind to the transaction in issue

 

·       In the case of Chintan Bindra the Delhi HC held that Employee Can’t Be Penalised For Non-Deposit Of TDS By Employer   

 

·       Delhi HC in the case of Augustus capital held that Explanation 6 and 7 to Sec 9(1)(i) have to be given a retrospective effect.

 

·       Bombay High court in the case of Ramona Pinto held that Amount Received In Satisfaction Of The Inheritance Rights Is Not A Taxable Income 

 

·       Allahabad High Court in the case of Lalitpur power held that the contract entered into between the respondent and each of the contractors, therefore, did not involve the supply of professional or technical services at least within the meaning of section 194J. The consideration paid under the contracts, therefore, was hot for the professional or technical services rendered by the contractors to the respondent. Section 194J is, therefore, not applicable to the present case.