Direct Tax Weekly Flashback for the period 12 to 18 January 2025.
Table of Contents
Delhi High Court
Collection Of Market Information Doesn’t Qualifying Benchmarks Of PE, Seconded Employees Not Carrying Business Of Samsung Korea: Delhi High Court
Case Title: PCIT Versus Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court has held that none of the activities undertaken by those seconded employees could be said or construed to be the carrying on or the conduct of business of Samsung Korea from the premises of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (SIEL).
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar has observed that the seconded employees were not discharging functions or performing activities connected with the global enterprise of the respondent. Their placement in India was with the objective of facilitating the activities of SIEL. Collection of market information, collation of data for development of products, market trend studies or exchange of information would not meet the qualifying benchmarks of a Permanent Establishment (PE).
TOLA | Rajeev Bansal Case Can’t Be Construed Affirming Authority Of Joint Commissioner To Approve Reassessment Notice Post 01 April 2021: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Rohit Kumar Versus ITO
The Delhi High Court has held that the Rajeev Bansal Case cannot possibly be construed or read as affirming the authority of a Joint Commissioner to accord approval or the authority being viewed as the competent authority for the purposes of grant of approval for the Reassessment Notice under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act post 01 April 2021.
TPO Framed Order In The Name Of Non-Existent Entity ‘Cairn’ Instead Of Vedanta, Error Not Curable: Delhi High Court
Case Title: PCIT Versus Vedanta Ltd.
The Delhi High Court Delhi High Court has held that the error committed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in the name of non-existent entity ‘cairn’ instead of vedanta, error is not curable.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that the inadvertent mistake committed by the TPO as well as Assessing Officer in not mentioning the name of the entity correctly is not a curable mistake under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Material Gathered In Previous Years Can’t Be The Basis Of Reassessment For Upcoming Years: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Grid Solutions Oy (Ltd) Versus ACIT
The Delhi High Court has held that the material gathered in previous years cannot be the basis of reassessment for upcoming years.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar has observed that based on what was noticed in the course of the survey, cannot be extrapolated to other years. The purported belief of the Assessing Officer was not a belief at all but was merely a suspicion.
Allahabad High Court
School To Pay Water-Tax And Sewerage-Tax Even If Exempted From Building Tax: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: S.H. Kazmi Skhisha Samiti and another Versus State of U.P. and 2 others
The Allahabad High Court has held that the School is liable to pay water-tax and sewerage-tax even if exempted from building tax.
The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar has observed that the building-tax is levied under the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, which provides for exemption under Section 177(c) for schools; however, the levy of water tax and sewerage tax is under the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975, in which no exemption is apparently available.
Kerala High Court
Income Tax Commissioner Can Exercise Revisional Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Dismisses Cochin International Airport’s Appeal
Case Title: Cochin International Airport Ltd. Versus ACIT
The Kerala High Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the Cochin International Airport Ltd. held that the Income Tax Commissioner can exercise revisional jurisdiction.
