|
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
Issue:
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 taxmann.com 31 and the CBDT
circulars holding the field.
Held:
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) 49taxmann.com 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
Issue:
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.
Held
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)
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now