Direct Tax Weekly Flashback for the period 2 to 8 February 2025.
Table of Contents
Supreme Court
Filing ITR After Due Date but Before Prosecution Does Not Impact Offence Under Section 276CC: Supreme Court
Case Title: Vinubhai Mohanlal Dobaria Versus Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr.
The Supreme Court has held that filing of Income Tax Return (ITR) after the due date but before prosecution does not impact offences under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act.
The bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sanjay Karol has observed that an offence under Section 276CC could be said to have been committed as soon as there is a failure on the part of the assessee in furnishing the return of income within the due time as prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act. Subsequent furnishing of the return of income by the assessee within the time limit prescribed under sub-section (4) of Section 139 or before prosecution is initiated does not have any bearing upon the fact that an offence under Section 276CC has been committed on the day immediately following the due date for furnishing return of income.
Delhi High Court Clarifies On Surviving Time Period For Income Tax Reassessment Notice
Case Title: Kanwaljeet Kaur Versus ACIT
The Delhi High Court has clarified on the surviving time period for income tax reassessment notice.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan has provided clarity on the computation of the surviving time period for issuing reassessment notices under the Income Tax Act and interpreted the Judgment of the Supreme Court’s Judgment in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal.
Sun Pharma Eligible For Refund Of Excess TDS, Delhi High Court Declares CBDT Para. Citing Limitation As Ultra Vires
Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Versus Income Tax Officer
The Delhi High Court has held that Sun Pharma is eligible for refund of excess TDS under Section 195 for FY 2010-11 to 2012-13.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that while allowing the petition filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries declared the paragraph 9 of the CBDT Circular No. 07/2007 dated 23 October 2007 which relates to the the limitation for making a claim of refund of excess TDS to be ultra vires the Income Tax Act ineligibility conditions refund of excess TDS.
Bombay High Court
ITAT Can’t Summarily Dismiss The Appeal For Default Of Appearance: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) cannot summarily dismiss the appeal for default of appearance.
Case Title: Vijay Shrinivasrao Kulkarni Versus Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench
The bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Advait M. Sethna has observed that the appellate tribunal was bound to give a proper decision on question of fact as well as law, which can only be done if the appeal is disposed off on merits and not dismissed owing to the absence of the appellant.
Karnataka High Court
Burden Lies On Assessee To Prove Lack Of Willful Default In Filing ITR: Karnataka High Court Upholds Prosecution Initiated By Income Tax Dept.
Case Title: Rajkumar Agarwal Versus Income Tax Department
The Karnataka High Court while upholding the prosecution initiated by income tax department held that burden lies on assessee to prove lack of willful default in filing Income Tax Return (ITR).
The bench of Justice S.Vishwajith Shetty has observed that in view of Section 278E of the Income Tax Act, in any prosecution for offence under the act, the court has to presume the existence of mens rea and it is for the accused to prove the contrary and that too beyond reasonable doubt.
