State not liable for withholding tax when granting permit to contractors to sell alcohol at fixed retail price: Supreme Court

Case Details: THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA & ANR. v. MYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LTD. & ORS CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2168 OF 2007

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 496

The Supreme Court recently ruled that any seller who purchases alcohol from state manufacturers without procuring it through auction and retails it at a fixed price would be excluded from the definition of ‘purchaser’ under Section 206C of the Income Tax Act. Such a trade would be exempt from TCS (Tax Collected at Source).

Regular references in the 7th Schedule of the Constitution cannot be given a broader interpretation to include taxation powers: Supreme Court

Case Details: Mineral Area Development v. M/S Steel Authority Of India & Ors (CA No. 4056/1999)

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 512

The Supreme Court recently held that the regular entries under List I and II of Schedule 7 to the Constitution cannot be construed more broadly and therefore do not include taxation powers that fall within the domain of specific tax entries under Schedule 7.

Delhi High Court

TPO barred from engaging in restructuring of transaction: Delhi High Court

Case title: CIT vs AT Kearney Ltd.

The Delhi High Court has held that it is not permissible for the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to engage in restructuring of a transaction.

Services provided outside India to Indian customers in connection with the right to use the process cannot be taxed: Delhi High Court

Case Title: The Commissioner of Income Tax – International Taxation v Telstra Singapore Pte Ltd.

The Delhi High Court has held that receipts from Indian customers for services rendered outside Indian territory in connection with the use or right to use processes or equipment by the taxable company cannot be taxed as royalty.

Educational activities which are neither business nor professional fall under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court

Title of the case: Stichting CIT(E) Versus NIIT

The Delhi High Court has held that the taxpayer is carrying on educational activities falling within the provisions of Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act and that this is neither a business nor a profession of the taxpayer.

Bombay High Court

Definition of ‘built-up area’ cannot have retrospective application, Bombay High Court dismisses divisional appeal

Case Title: PCIT vs GK Developers

The Bombay High Court has held that the term ‘built-up area’, which was introduced with effect from 1 April 2005, cannot be applied retrospectively. The court was right in holding that till 1 April 2005, the term ‘built-up area’ would exclude the balcony area.

Calcutta High Court

Department failed to inform taxpayer regarding addition of Section 69A, assessment order not tenable: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Vishal Jhajharia vs. The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Faceless Assessment Centre & Ors.

The Calcutta High Court quashed the assessment order on the ground that the department failed to inform the assessee of the addition under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act.

Kerala High Court

Profit from sale of immovable property held for investment to be taxed under ‘capital gain’: Kerala High Court

2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 467

Case Title: PCIT vs. Arun Majeed

The Kerala High Court has held that when an immovable property held for investment purposes rather than trading is sold, the gain will be taxable under the category of ‘capital gain’ and such a transaction will be taxable only under capital gain and not under trading adventure.

Manipur High Court

Failure to communicate revision and notice of demand within time: Manipur High Court quashes review

Case Title: Smt. Mema Paul vs. Income Tax Officer

The Manipur High Court has held that a revision by the Income-tax Officer without timely communication of the revision order and the notice of revision cannot be considered a valid assessment.

The purpose of introducing faceless adjudication is invalid if show cause notice U/s 148 is issued from the jurisdiction of the AO: Punjab & Haryana HC

Case Title: Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 165

While pointing out that the system of anonymous assessment is applicable from the stage of show cause notice u/s 148 and 148A, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that notice u/s 148 cannot be issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer after the introduction of the system of anonymous assessment.

Jharkhand High Court

Jharkhand High Court dismisses department’s appeals for not filing application for stay of payment along with writ petition

Case Title: PCIT vs. Tripta Sharma

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 124

The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the ministry, but held that a delayed petition for relief, which is not filed with a notice of appeal and subsequent filing, cannot cure defects.