Seeking interim release of cash seized by the Circle Inspector of Police, Mananthavady, in the course of routine patrol duty - who is entitled to interim custody of the cash that has been seized by the Excise Preventive Officer during a routine check inside a bus? - Excise Department has closed the proceedings as they could not detect any wrongdoing on the part of the person from whom the cash was seized - HC held [2023 (9) TMI 1557 - KERALA HIGH COURT] common order passed by the learned Magistrate will stand quashed. Assistant Director, with whom the amounts were entrusted, is ordered to return the amounts released to the learned Magistrate. Magistrate shall release the amount to the 1st petitioner on furnishing a bond for a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. HELD THAT:- Heard learned counsel and Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, Additional Solicitor General appearing for the petitioner at length. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Disallowance u/s 37(1) - expenses being contribution / donation to educational institutions, trust, local bodies - commercial expediency or not? - As decided by HC [2019 (8) TMI 1288 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] correct test should be of commercial expediency and not whether the payment was compulsory for the assessee to make or not. ITAT has not erred in law and on facts in deleting disallowance u/s 37(1) in respect of expenses being contribution / donation to educational institutions, trust, local bodies, thus decided issue in favour of assessee - HELD THAT:- Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-Department. Leave granted.

Delay in paying the audit fee - Petitioner was engaged as an auditor in exercise of the Assessing Officer’s (AO) powers u/s 142(2A) - HC held [2023 (2) TMI 861 - DELHI HIGH COURT] there is enormous delay in each case in payment of the determined audit fee. The delay is nearly four years in each case and interest ought to be paid to the petitioner at the rate of 7% per annum. Interest will run from the date of determination in each case till the date of payment of audit fee was made. HELD THAT:- There is a delay of 204 days in filing the Special Leave Petition. The delay has not been satisfactorily explained. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed on the ground of delay.

Validity of notice issued u/s 153C - writ direction or order to quash and set aside the impugned notices u/s 153C and the order disposing off the objections along with the show Cause Notices issued for A.Y. 2016- 17, A.Y. 2017-18 and A.Y. 2018-19 - HELD THAT:- As order speaks itself in as much as the writ petition was not entertained by the High Court for reasons to be followed which due to paucity of time was not dictated on 27.9.2021 on which the matter was disposed of. However, no reasons were dictated at all. It is also brought to our notice that the Presiding Judge of the Division Bench has also retired. In the circumstances, the writ petition will have to be re-heard. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the High Court. The writ petition is restored on the file of the High Court to be re-heard and an order to be passed in accordance with law along with reasons. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - escapement of income on account of bank interest and cash deposits in two of its bank accounts - scope of 3rd proviso to Section 12A(2) - Validity of order passed u/subsec (d) of Section 148A being without jurisdiction and against the 3rd proviso to Section 12A(2) of the Act - petitioner uploaded its reply taking a plea that as per 3rd proviso to Section 12A(2) of the Act, there was a bar to take any action u/s 147 for any preceding year, in which the registration was granted - As decided by HC [2023 (7) TMI 506 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] Registration of the petitioner-trust was granted on 30.09.2016 which was applicable from the assessment year 2016-17 and as such, said registration was valid for claiming the benefit under Sections 11 and 12 no proceedings under Section 147 can be initiated for the assessment year 2015-16 and impugned notices and the consequent order passed under Section 148A(d) being contrary to the 3rd proviso to Section 12A(2) of the Act, are set aside. HELD THAT:- Though there is delay of 191 days in filing this special leave petition, we have heard learned ASG, appearing for the petitioners on merits also. We are not inclined to interfere in the matter(s). Hence, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

Disallowance u/s 14A - As decided by HC [2022 (9) TMI 886 - DELHI HIGH COURT] in cases where shares are held by assessee as stock-in-trade, the dividend earned on the said shares is incidental and would not attract the provisions of Section 14A - HELD THAT:- As there is a huge delay of 350 days in filing this Special Leave Petition. The reasons seeking condonation of delay are not explained to the satisfaction of this Court. Further we find that the High Court has applied a judgment of this Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Limited [2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT][and has granted relief to the respondent-M/S PNB Housing Finance Ltd. We are, therefore, not inclined to condone the delay or/and interfere in the matter on merits. Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

Appointment to the post of Income Tax Inspectors - Appointment against Sports Quota vacancy - HELD THAT:- Income Tax Department is willing to appoint the petitioner against the Sports Quota vacancy but, she has to produce an unconditional No Objection Certificate (for short ‘NOC’) from her present employer, i.e., The Central Railways. It is also clarified that the appointment to be given, will be on prospective basis. The petitioner is represented by Mr. V. Chitambaresh, learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner would furnish the unconditional NOC from her current employer. She is also prepared to accept the appointment as an Income Tax Inspector, on prospective basis. Taking note of the above submissions from the learned senior counsel representing both sides, we deem it appropriate to pass the following order: (i) The petitioner is granted four weeks’ time to produce the NOC, from her current employer. (ii) Immediately after the NOC is produced before the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax(CCA), HQ Kochi, Kerala, the appointment order will be issued appointing the petitioner as an Income Tax Inspector under Sports Quota. (iii) The appointment will be on prospective basis. With the above order, the Special Leave Petitions are allowed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Rectification of the Assessment Order u/s 143 - whether application for rectification had been filed beyond the period of limitation ? - action for reflection of the TDS deducted against the new PAN Number obtained by the petitioner - Application for granting permission u/s 119(2)(b) - issuance of new pan - TDS deductions not reflected in Form 26AS - Petitioner seeking to rectify its Income Tax return qua the TDS now being reflected under the correct PAN - Income Tax Authorities have also reflected the TDS amount of old PAN against the new PAN Number of the petitioner, as an Association of Persons. As decided by HC [2023 (4) TMI 340 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] rectification application could be filed by the petitioner within four years of the expiry of the Assessment Year. Admittedly, the petitioner did not do so. By resorting to Clause 3 of Circular No. 9/2015, the petitioner could have sought condonation of delay, in moving the rectification application by another two years. The petitioner did not file the rectification application either within the period of limitation, or even within the period for which the delay could be condoned, i.e. up to six years. The petitioner moved the rectification application only in the year 2021, i.e. after over 12 years. HELD THAT:- As petitioner submitted that permission may be granted to the petitioner herein to withdraw this Special Leave petition with liberty to make a representation to the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 so as to seek adjustment in view of the rectification made by the Department with regard to the PAN number of the petitioner/entity. The submission of learned senior counsel is placed on record. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn reserving aforesaid liberty to the petitioner. It is needless to observe that if any representation is made by the petitioner to the CBDT, the same shall be considered expeditiously and in accordance with law and a copy of the order passed thereon shall be communicated to the petitioner herein. Since, the plea made by the petitioner herein in these proceedings was rejected on the ground of delay and not on merits as such, the representation to be made by the petitioner to the CBDT shall be considered on its own merits without being influenced by the impugned order(s).

Unrealized gains on revaluation of forward contracts as the bank accounts - Tribunal setting aside claim of assessee relating to unrealized gains on revaluation of forward contracts as the bank accounts were admittedly prepared on accrual basis and revenue was recognized following mercantile method except for certain items which were accounted on cash basis - depreciation in value of investment in HTM Securities - disallowances made u/s 36(1) (viia) - disallowance made u/s 14A - disallowances on account of AFS and HFT category of investments - HC 2023 (1) TMI 291 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] concluded two appeals do not survive for consideration - Revenue has filed these two appeals challenging the findings recorded by the ITAT, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Revenue's appeals and those issues were not under consideration before the ITAT. Therefore, these appeals are superfluous and unnecessary There is a gross delay of 261 days in filing this special leave petition. HELD THAT:- The explanation offered for condonation of delay is not satisfactory. Hence, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing this petition is dismissed. Consequently, the special leave petition is dismissed on the ground of delay. The questions of law, if any, which arise in this special leave petition are kept open.

Scope of of Sections 44BB(1) and 44BB(2) - amount paid or payable for the purpose of computation of the ‘presumptive taxable income’ - whether the service tax collected by the assessees in the course of provision of services and facilities in connection with, or supply of plant and machinery on hire, in the prospecting for, or extraction or production of, mineral oils in India, was liable to be included in the amount paid or payable for the purpose of computation of the ‘presumptive taxable income’ of the assessee? - as decided by HC [2022 (11) TMI 385 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] amount reimbursed to the assessee (service provider) by the ONGC (service recipient), representing the service tax paid earlier by the assessee to the Government of India, would not form part of the aggregate amount referred to in Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 44 BB of the Income Tax Act. HELD THAT:- We are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The special Leave Petition is dismissed

Income taxable in India - receipts earned from supply of software - whether taxable in India under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Article 12 of the India-USA Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) - As petitioner submitted that there is a delay of 334 days in filing and further the issues which arise in this petition are covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Ltd. [2021 (3) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT] against the Department. HELD THAT:- Following the aforesaid judgment, the special leave petition is dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

Assessment u/s 153A - mandate of satisfaction recorded by the assessing officer of the searched person (153A) - date with reference to which the proceedings for assessment or reassessment of any assessment year - HELD THAT:- In view of the order GALI JANARDHANA REDDY [2023 (12) TMI 464 - SC ORDER] and similar issues being raised in the present Special Leave Petition also, following the aforesaid order as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax 14 v/s vs. Jasjit Singh [2023 (10) TMI 572 - SUPREME COURT] this special leave petition is also dismissed.

Condonation of delay of 2139 days in filing the Appeal against the order of ITAT - HELD THAT:- Without going into the observations made by the High Court in considering the case(s) seeking condonation of delay of 2139 days in filing the petitions, we find that there was a huge delay which is not condonable. Hence, there is no merit in the special leave petitions. Questions of law, if any, which arise in the matter(s) are kept open.

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - non-independent application of mind by AO - information which has been provided to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act relied upon - claim of CSR expenses made by the petitioner - as decided by HC [2023 (6) TMI 286 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] action of issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act in the background of present facts as erroneous, reflects no subjective satisfaction nor any application of mind - HELD THAT:- SLP dismissed.

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - capital reduction and financial statements highlighting the capital reduction in the balance sheet - capital gain transactions filed under Schedule C.G. - Capital Gains - purchase and sale of shares and the conversion of amounts in foreign currency - petitioner categorically mentioned that it had not carried on any business activity since the liquidation/bankruptcy application and also mentioned about the capital reduction - petitioner had incorrectly characterized the transaction and consequently contended that it was not covered under Section 112(1)(c)(iii) and claimed the benefit of computation under Section 48 - as decided by HC [2023 (3) TMI 485 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] as at the time of filing the return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16, the petitioner was not covered by Section 112(1)(c)(iii) as it had transferred the shares of the private limited company, thus assessment is being sought to be reopened in contravention of the law as it stood during the previous year 2014-15 and A.Y. 2015-16 in which the petitioner filed its tax return - a retrospective amendment cannot be the basis for reopening of assessment. In any case, it may be noted that for the A.Y. 2015-16, the four years period has expired on 31st March 2020, and absence any failure to disclose facts by the assessee or any tangible new material, the reopening of assessment proceedings by the respondent is bad in law. The reopening of the assessment based on a different method of computation or application of the section is nothing else but a change of opinion, which is impermissible in law and allowed assessee appeal - HELD THAT:- SLP dismissed.

Reopening of assessment - absence of jurisdiction with the issuing authority for reopening - as alleged approval as required u/s 151 had not been obtained - four years had expired - scope of provisions of Section 151 came to be amended with effect from 01/04/2021 - As decided by HC [2023 (6) TMI 1221 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] notice is liable to be set aside on the ground of absence of jurisdiction with the issuing authority - HELD THAT:- UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following Delay in filing the special leave petition is condoned. Issue notice to the respondent. Tag and list the matter along with SLP [2023 (5) TMI 1120 - SC ORDER]

Validity of reopening of assessment - assumption of jurisdiction for reassessment - Period of limitation - Scope of extended period of six years - reassessment even after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, but, within six years from the relevant assessment year - delay of 340 days in filing the special leave petition - As decided by HC [2022 (8) TMI 1340 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material particulars in our view would constitute the "jurisdictional fact" for invoking extended period of limitation and failure to record the existence of the above jurisditional fact while invoking the extended period under the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, would vitiate the entire proceedings - failure to render a finding as to the existence of the above circumstance warranting invocation of the extended period in terms of the proviso to Section 147 of the Act would vitiate the entire proceedings. Thus the initiation of reassessment proceedings is in excess of jurisdiction HELD THAT:- SLP dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

Disallowance pertaining to the exaggerated profit of captive power generating unit by claiming higher rate than the cost price or the market price charged by it on the supply of power made by it to 3rd party i.e., State Electricity Board - HC [2008 (9) TMI 949 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] decided against the revenue. Appellant(s) mentioned that in the judgment [2023 (12) TMI 417 - SUPREME COURT] ought to have been allowed, being filed by the assessee(s). HELD THAT:- Accordingly, paragraph ‘56’ of the said judgment may be read as under: “56. For the aforesaid reasons, all the Civil Appeals barring C.A. No.9920/2016 are hereby dismissed. Since C.A.No.9920/2016 is filed by the assessee(s), the same is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.” The Registry is directed to do the needful.

Income deemed to accrue or arise in India - Taxability of amount received - PE in India - Indo-China DTAA - whether payments made by the assessee’s customers to it constituted royalty, in respect of software supplied? - as confirmed by SC [2021 (7) TMI 1336 - SC ORDER] supplies made (of the software) enabled the use of the hardware sold. It was not disputed that without the software, hardware use was not possible. The mere fact that separate invoicing was done for purchase and other transactions did not imply that it was royalty payment. In such cases, the nomenclature (of license or some other fee) is indeterminate of the true nature. HELD THAT:- We find no ground to interfere with the impugned order(s) passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.

Offence punishable u/s 276CC - assessee failure to file return of income - willful attempt or not? - As decided by HC 2022 (11) TMI 590 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] there is no evasion of tax. It is not the case that no return has been filed, thus there is no willful failure on the part of the petitioner to file return - HELD THAT:- No good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.