Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
16.03.2019 - Voice of CA presents - Latest Updates
Saturday, March 16, 2019

  I. Headlines Today:   

  1. Companies may pass on GST benefits to consumers by increasing grammage  (Click for detail)
  2. Essence of availing input tax credit: GSTR 2A Reconciliation  (Click for detail)
  3. CG. Notifies creation of National Bench of Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal  (Click for detail)
  4. RBI issues guidelines to prevent market abuse  (Click for detail)
  5. Reserve Bank of India backs finance ministry on debt recast plan  (Click for detail)
  6. How to save income tax via medical expenditures under sections 80D, 80DD, 80DDB, 80U  (Click for detail)
  7. 4 important tax benefits of buying a house jointly  (Click for detail)
  8. Announcement - CA Exams May 2019 - Apply for Changes/Corrections  (Click for detail)

  II. Direct Taxes Case Laws: 

1.  Devarsh Pravinbhai Patel Vs. ACIT, Civil Application No. 12965 & 12966 of 2018, Date of Pronouncement: 24.09.2018, High Court of Gujarat

Whether the petitioner is correct in contending that he had already suffered the deduction of tax, the mere fact that the deductee did not deposit such tax with the Government revenue could not permit the Incometax Department to recover such amount from the petitioner?

Held: Yes

Brief facts:
The Petitioner is an individual. At the relevant time he was employed as a pilot of King Fisher Airlines. He had filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 on 31.7.2012. During the relevant period the employer had deducted tax at source on salary payments made to the petitioner. Such TDS came to Rs.2,68,498/.However the employer did not deposit such tax with the Government revenue. The petitioner raised the demand of such TDS in his liability to pay tax to the Government. The Department however objected to this and raised equivalent tax demand with interest. Towards such recoveries the Department in fact adjusted a refund of Rs.47,140/ from the petitioner for the assessment year 201314. This happened on 24.4.2015.According to the petitioner, the stand of the Department is against the statutory provisions, decision of this Court in case of Sumit Devendra Rajani vs. Assistant Commissioner of Incometax, reported in (2014) 49 31 and the CBDT circulars holding the field.

Held that the Department cannot deny the benefit of tax deducted at source by the employer of the petitioner during the relevant financial years. Credit of such tax would be given to the petitioner for the respective years. If there has been any recovery or adjustment out of the refunds of the later years, the same shall be returned to the petitioner with statutory interest.For these reasons, the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
Hence, the appeal was held against therevenue and in favour of the assessee.

Cases Cited:
Devendra Rajani vs. ACIT (2014) 31,HC- Gujarat
Asst. CIT VS. Om Prakash Gattani(2000) 242ITR 638, HC- Bombay

(Please click here for judgment)


2.  Mandhana Industries Ltd. Vs. PCIT, Writ Petition No. 2320 of 2018, Date of Pronouncement: 04.02.2019, High Court of Bombay

Whether Commissioner had powers to revise the order in respect of issue not adjudicated by Settlement Commission.

Held: No

Brief facts:
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of textiles & garments. Assessee was subject to search operation on 11.1.2012. Pending assessment u/s 153A, assessee applied to Settlement Commission of all cases under joint application filed on 22.10.2013 which was finally disposed by an order dated 30.08.2014. Assessee filed a revision petition before CIT on the plea that subsidy received from Govt being the nature of  capital receipt was erroneously offered to tax while computing book profit under MAT. However, the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the revision petition on the grounds that Commissioner has no powers to revise the order of Settlement Commission & there was delay in filing the revised petition.

Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed a writ petition before Hon’ble Bombay HC.

The Hon’ble HC held that Income Tax Act doesn’t contemplate a parallel proceedings before the Settlement Commission &  before the Assessing Officer. Further, sub section (7) of Section 245D states that “where a settlement becomes void , the proceedings with respect to the matters covered by the settlement shall be deemed to have been revived from the stage at which the application was allowed to be proceeded and the concerned income tax authority would complete such proceedings at any time before expiry of two years from the end of financial year in which the settlement became void”.

These provisions make it abundantly clear that a case could either be dealt with by the concerned income tax authority or the Settlement Commission but not both.
Therefore, the writ petition was held in favour of revenue and against the assessee.

Cases cited
1.    Brijlal Vs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 477 (SC).
2.    Vaata Infra Vs.ITO 229 Taxman 373 (Madras HC).
3.    Rashtriya Vikas Ltd Vs. CIT 99 CTR 68 (Allahabad HC).

(Please click here for judgment)


Golden Rules:

  "Never trust the DOUBTED ones & Never doubt the TRUSTED ones.
GOD has given us 'REAL-EYES' to 'REALISE' the 'REAL LIES" 


Thanks & Regards


Voice of CA 

« Back
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now