'); document.write('

Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three Pte. Ltd. v. ACIT (Delhi)(HC) www.itatonline .org
'); document.write('The reassessment notice was issued to verify the genuineness of the Transaction. The assesse filed the objections to the recorded reasons on the ground that , inaccurate reasons for formation of belief, reassessment cannot be done in the absence of tangible material, income chargeability to tax escapement of assessment, and eligibility to claim tax treaty benefits between India and Singapore. The Objection was dimmed by the Assessing Officer. On writ allowing the petition, the Court held that the revenue cannot go behind the tax residency certificate issued by the other tax jurisdiction and issue a re-assessment notice to determine issues of residence status, treaty eligibility and legal ownership. The act of the revenue is wholly contrary to the Government of India’s repeated assurances to foreign investors by way of CBDT Circulars, press releases, legislative amendments and judicial pronouncements. It was also held that the reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated for verifying the genuineness of a transaction, on the basis of borrowed satisfaction, and without a live link between the material and formation to believe. Further, it was also held that the concept of beneficial ownership under DTAA is only qua dividend, interest and royalty, and not capital gains. (WP(C) 2562 of 2022 dated January 30, 2023 )( AY. 2016-17 )'); document.write('
Nishith Madanlal Desai v.CIT ( 2022) 218 DTR 268 / 139 Taxman 52 ( Bom)( HC)
'); document.write('The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act . In the course of assessment proceedings specific query was raised regarding loan taken and utilisation thereof during assessment proceeding and answered. The reassessment notice was issued on the ground that the interest expense cannot be allowed as a deduction to the assessee either under section 24(b) or under section 57 of the Act. On writ allowing the petition the Court held that entire basis was from available records and once a conclusive view had been taken by Assessing Officer, another officer could not rely on same documents or information to take a view different from view already taken . Therefore reopening of assessment being mere change of opinion was not justified . Accordingly the notice of reassessment and order disposing the objection was quashed . (AY.2006-07) '); document.write('
Greatship (India) Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 289 Taxman 334 (Bom.)(HC). www.itatonline.org
'); document.write('The Assessing Officer adjusted the refund without giving any prior intimation. On writ allowing the petition the Court held that where a party raises objection in response to the intimation, the Assessing Officer exercising powers under section 245 of the Act must record reasons why the objection was not sustainable and also communicate it to the assessee and this would ensure that the power of adjustment under section 245 of the Act is not exercised arbitrarily. On facts of the case the Court held that action of the Assessing Officer making the adjustment without prior intimation is bad in law and illegal hence quashed. (AY. 2008-09) (WP. No. 1476 of 2022 dt. 18-7-2022)'); document.write('
ITD v. Jenious Clothing Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 449 ITR 575 / (2023) 146 taxmann.com 52 (SC)
'); document.write('The trial court discharged both accused on the ground that Sunil V. Raheja was wrongly treated as the principal officer by the Department under section 2(35) of the Act. The High Court confirmed the orders passed by the trial court discharging the accused. On appeals, In view of the submission of the assessees that they would have no objection if the orders passed by the trial court discharging the accused and confirmed by the High Court were set aside and the trial was ordered to be proceeded further in accordance with law and on the merits and keeping all the defences which may be available to the accused open, the court quashed and set aside the orders passed by the trial court discharging the accused for the offences punishable under section 276B read with section 278B of the Act and confirmed by the High Court and directed the trial to be proceeded with further and the cases decided and disposed of by the trial court in accordance with law and on their own merits. The court clarified that all the defences available to the accused shall be considered by the trial court in accordance with law and on the merits and on the basis of the evidence led. (AY. 2017-18)'); document.write('
Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 449 ITR 203 / 329 CTR 553 / 220 DTR 1 (SC) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. CIT (2022) 449 ITR 203 / 329 CTR 553 / 220 DTR 1 (SC) British Airways PLC v. CIT (TDS) (2022) 449 ITR 203 / 329 CTR 553 / 220 DTR 1 (SC)
'); document.write('Held that the liability of an airline to deduct tax at source on supplementary commission had admittedly not been adjudicated upon by the court when the controversy first arose in assessment year 2001-02. While one set of air carriers acted under the assumption that the supplementary commission would come within the ambit of the provisions of the Act, another set held the opposite view. There were contradictory pronouncements by different High Courts which clearly highlighted the genuine and bona fide legal conundrum that was raised by the prospect of section 194H being applied to the supplementary commission. provision must be read with section 273B which excuses an otherwise defaulting assessee from levy of penalties under certain circumstances. There was clearly an arguable and “nascent” legal issue that required resolution by the Supreme Court and, hence, there was “reasonable cause” for the air carriers not to have deducted tax at source at the relevant period. Accordingly the penalty proceedings against the airlines under section 271C of the Act was quashed. (AY.2001-02)'); document.write('