Blog

The Telangana AAR in the ruling No. TSAAR Order No.04/2024 has decided that the AIIMS cannot claim Exemption under the GST Act on pure services received from its vendors on the basis that the applicant although is not the Central Government but a Governmental authority was established by the Government through the Parliament. Subsequently, the GST exemption Notification 12/2017 was amended w.e.f. 01.01.2022 hadomits the phrase Governmental Authority from the description of the services; hence, the applicant is not eligible for exemption.

RBI through notification no. RBI/2023-24/126 dated 23.02.2024 permits authorized banks and non-banks to issue PPIs for making payments across various public transport systems. These instructions are issued under Section 18 r.w.s 10(2)of the Payment and  Settlement  Systems  Act,  2007, and shall come into effect immediately.

Govt. notifies July 1, 2024, as the effective date for enforcement of provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Ministry of Corporate Affairs incorporation-related services can also be accessed through the National Single Window System (NSWS) by going through the following link: https://www.nsws.gov.in/

The NCLAT has dismissed the appeal file by the appellant against the order passed by the adjudicating authority wherein the Authority has allowed the application filed by the financial creditor for the replacement of the appellant by a new Resolution Professional based on the Resolution dated 06.10.2023 passed by the CoC for replacement of the appellant.

The bench noted that when the CoC had not confirmed the appointment of the IRP, the IRP could have been replaced by the CoC under Section 22 of IBC. Further, the tribunal has observed that the CoC never confirmed the appointment of the appellant as the IRP and no evidence has been provided indicating the CoC’s confirmation by a majority of not less than 66% of the vote. Therefore, when the appellant’s appointment as IRP was not confirmed, he could have been replaced by the CoC under Section 22 of the IBC.

The Allahabad High Court in W.T. No. 141/2023 has quashed the penalty which was imposed because of the production of expired e-way bill, decided that as there is no intention to evade tax which was established by the authorities and subsequently there was no dispute regarding consignor and consignee and the description of the goods, the penalty could not be imposed on the grounds for a technical error.

The brief facts pertaining to this case are:

• The goods of the petitioner were intercepted and the e-way bill had expired, wherein no discrepancies were found between the goods and the invoices and the other e-way bill.
• The petitioner stated the reason for the expiry of the e-way bill due to the breakdown of the vehicle and the letter of the mechanic who repaired the vehicle along with the ‘fast-tag’ chart was produced before the court as evidence.
• The petitioner has relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case M/S “Pepsico India Holdings Limited Lucknow v. Commissioner of Trade Tax and Jain Shudh Vanaspati Limited Ghaziabad and Others v. State of U.P. and Others”, wherein the petitioner contended that the penalty could not be imposed on the grounds of requisite documents with the goods.
• Decision: The court has quashed the order of the penalty because without having the intention to evade tax, the penalty couldn’t be sustained under Section 129(3) based on technical errors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the appellant assessee against the order of the High Court which dismissed the appeal because of Delay in filing the paper book. Further, the High Court has dismissed the restoration application and furthermore dismissed the restoration application filed by the appellant assessee.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court should admit and examine the facts of the appeal and the Apex Court condones the delay and has restored the original appeal with a direction to take up the appeal together and dispose of the matters after allowing all the contesting parties. (Remanded back to High Court for adjudicating based on merits)

The Madras High Court in the case having WP(C)24032/2021 has quashed the assessment proceedings initiated in violation as prescribed u/s 144B. The bench has observed that a duty is cast on the AO in terms of Section 144B(1)(xiv) to take into account all relevant material frames the draft assessment order wherein the respondent has erred in not complying with the mandatory requirement since the draft assessment order has been made without even examining/taking into account the objections/response of the petitioner made vide letter dated 22.09.2021and herein the draft assessment order suffers from non-application of mind to relevant matters and on record, thus stands vitiated.

The brief facts pertaining to this case are:

• The assessee company engaged in the manufacture, production, and sale of animal feed, aquatic feed, and aquatic health care products wherein filed its return declaring “Nil” income after set-off of brought forward losses.
• Subsequently, the ITO issued an SCN to make additions for invoking penalty u/s 270A wherein the assessee filed its reply along with supporting evidence and passed the assessment order u/s 143(3).
• The bench has found that the intimation by the NFaC u/s 144B(1)(iii) has not been furnished as the method and manner adopted in making the assessment is now a complete faceless assessment which was launched in 2020 to promote an efficient and effective tax administration, minimize physical interface & increasing accountability.
• The Bench opined that intimation u/s.144B(1)(iii) informs an assessee that the assessment would be made in terms of Sec.144B which is important if one bears in mind that Faceless Assessments u/s.144B comes with its own set of obligations and rights in making the assessment.
• On this the order was passed without considering objections filed by the assessee, the Bench pointed out that such an assessment order traverses beyond the draft assessment order and hereby prejudice to the assessee.
• Decision: The court on this basis decided that the draft assessment order suffers from non-application of mind and thereby sets aside impugned proceedings and directed the revenue to follow the procedure contemplated u/s.144B.(In the favour of the assessee).

The Bombay High Court in W.P.(C) 2770/2022, has that the AO can’t take or make recourse to reopen the assessment to indemnify the error resulting from his oversight wherein the failure was committed on the part of the assessing officer during the assessment proceeding.

The brief facts about this case are:

• The petitioner assessee is in the business of trading shares and stock.
• The petitioner challenged the action of the department for issuing notice under Section 148 seeking to reassess the petitioner’s income for Assessment Year 2015-16.
• The assessee pleaded that the notice u/s 148 has been issued after the expiry of more than 4 years from the end of the relevant AY and an assessment under Section 143(3) of the act has been made further as per the proviso, reassessment is impermissible after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, where assessment under Section 143(3) has been made unless there has been a failure on the part of the petitioner to truly and fully disclose material facts. Though the words failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment’ have been used in the reasons recorded, those have been used only to get over the fetters placed by the proviso to Section 147.
• Decision: The court held that the entire basis for forming a reason to believe there was an escape of income is from the records filed by the petitioner with the return of income. There has been no failure on the part of the assessee to truly and fully disclose the primary facts(In the favour of the assessee).

The Bombay High Court in the case having appeal no. ITA/1169/2018 has held that HSBC Bank carrying on bona fide banking business in Mauritius is exempt from tax in India.

The brief facts about this case are:

• The respondent assessee is an LLP based out and a tax resident in Mauritius and an FII duly licensed by the SEBI.
• During assessment proceedings, the AO has noticed that the assessee earned a substantial amount of interest income on securities on which the assessee has claimed the interest income as exempt income under Article 11(3) of the Indo-Mauritius DTAA.
• The AO didn’t accept the assessee’s claim but had accepted that the assessee’s income from ECB was exempt under Section 90, read with Article 11 of the DTAA, as the company was carrying on bona fide banking business in Mauritius.
• DRP: The assessee filed objections with the DRP and the DRP upheld the findings of the AO and passed the assessment order.
• ITAT: The matter went to ITAT and the ITAT had allowed the assessee’s appeal.
• Subsequently, the department noted that Article 11(c) of the DTAA will not apply to the assessee because the assessee does not have a banking business license from the RBI.

CourtFindings

• The court noted that to fall under Article 11(3)(c) of the DTAA, the assessee does not have to be carrying on banking business in India where the assessee should only be a resident of Mauritius and must be carrying on bona fide banking business in Mauritius.
• The court held that in the draft assessment order, the AO while granting exemption to the interest on the ECB, has accepted that the assessee is carrying on bona fide banking business in Mauritius.
• Decision: The fact that the assessee is carrying on a bona fide banking business in Mauritius is not disputed. An assessee will be entitled to exemption from tax in India. (In the favour of the assessee).