Sachin. P. Kumar & Associates

As we step into 2025, let's embrace new opportunities, overcome challenges, and work towards justice and fairness for all. At Sachin P Kumar and Associates, we are committed to providing exceptional legal solutions to guide you through every legal journey. Here's to a year filled with growth, trust, and success! For more information contact us on : +919975637699 or visit our website www.sachinpkumar.com #HappyNewYear2025 #LegalSolutions #SachinPKumarAndAssociates #NewYearNewBeginnings #LegalSupport #JusticeForAll #ProfessionalIntegrity

This holiday season, let’s celebrate the joy of giving, the power of justice, and the spirit of togetherness. For more information contact us on : +919975637699 or visit our website www.sachinpkumar.com #MerryChristmas #LegalExperts #LawAndJustice #HolidaySeason #PeaceAndJoy #EthicalPractice #SachinPKumarAndAssociates

In this case, the assessee had filed an appeal against the order is no ground to refuse relief to the assessee as the original order was clearly issued in violation of principles of natural justice. A writ petition was furnished by the taxpayer contesting the assessment order furnished under the provisions of Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts. The Kerala High Court held that the fact that the taxpayer had filed an appeal against the order was irrelevant, as the premature issuance of the order was the main issue. Hence, the assessment order was legally invalid because it was issued before the time to respond had expired. Therefore, the order was set aside.   Case: Elsy Joy vs. The Deputy Commissioner of State WP(C) NO. 35393 OF 2024 For more information contact us on : +919975637699 or  visit our website www.sachinpkumar.com #keralahighcourt #taxdemand #taxliability #redund #tsd #section205 #incometaxact

The Delhi High Court reviewed the reopening of the assessment of Discovery Communications India for AY 2011-12 wherein the Revenue argued that an amount of Rs. 2.01 crore, paid as the Discovery Appreciation Plan (DAP) to employees, was not examined during the original assessment. However, the Court emphasized that reopening under Section 147 requires more than just escapement of income. It noted that the DAP issue was ambiguous, and no such failure was proven. Therefore, reopening was not automatically justified.The Court found no failure by the assessee to disclose material facts and ruled that the DAP issue was ambiguous. It held that instead of reopening the assessment under Section 147, the proper remedy was to invoke Section 263 for correction.   Case: Discovery Communications India v. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 3, New Delhi W.P.(C) 13225/2018 For more information contact us on : +919975637699 or visit our website www.sachinpkumar.com #delhihighcourt #DAP #section147 #incometax #section263

In this case, the assessee challenged an order passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which refused to extend the deadline for filing income tax returns for the assessment years 2007-2018. The Kerala High Court ruled that the Principal Commissioner wrongly focused on the merits of the assessee's case instead of determining whether there were valid reasons to condone the delay in filing returns under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the request for examining the validity of the claim for condonation of delay was allowed. Case: Mohan Poovampally Gopal v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Case number: WP(C) NO. 26159 2024 For more information contact us on : +919975637699 or visit our website www.sachinpkumar.com #keralahighcourt #filingdelay #section119 #incometaxact

Today, we honour the pillars of justice and the champions of rights—Advocates! At our office, we celebrated Advocates Day with great enthusiasm, reflecting on the values of justice, fairness, and dedication that guide us every day. For more information contact us on : +919975637699 or visit our website www.sachinpkumar.com #AdvocatesDay #LegalExcellence #JusticeForAll #RuleOfLaw #LawyersLife #LegalProfession #PillarsOfJustice #AdvocacyMatters #SachinPKumarAndAssociates #LegalSolutions

This Advocates' Day, we honour the dedication, resilience, and integrity of all advocates who uphold the rule of law and champion justice for all. Your relentless efforts ensure fairness and equality in society. Let’s continue to inspire, educate, and empower through the legal profession! For more information contact us on : +919975637699 or visit our website www.sachinpkumar.com #AdvocatesDay #LegalProfession #JusticeForAll #RuleOfLaw #AdvocacyMatters #SachinPKumarAndAssociates #LawyerLife #LegalSolutions #EmpoweringJustice #LegalCommunity #IntegrityInLaw

In the present case, the ITAT Bangalore ruled that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) in holding that there is no liability to deduct tax towards sales commissions paid by a domestic company to its US-based subsidiary for marketing services did not qualify as "Fees for Technical Services" (FTS) under Section 9(1)(vii) or Article 12 of the India-US DTAA. It was held that the services did not "make available" technical knowledge or skills, as the subsidiaries had to approach the assessee each time for new customers or to maintain existing relationships. Therefore, the company was not required to deduct tax at source, and the AO’s disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was disagreed. Case: DCIT Vs Algonomy Software Pvt Ltd (ITAT Bangalore) ITA Nos. 1196, 1226 & 1229/Bang/2024 For more information contact us on : +919975637699 or visit our website www.sachinpkumar.com #ITATBangalore #taxdeduction #section40 #incometax

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Satwant Singh Sanghera, a former Kingfisher Airlines pilot, against a tax demand of over Rs 11 lakh. The petitioner had filed his taxes, and the airline deducted TDS but failed to deposit it with the government. Citing Section 205 of the Income Tax Act, which limits tax liability to the amount deducted at source, the court ruled that the petitioner was not liable for taxes the company failed to remit. The court set aside the demand and ordered the tax department to refund the amount to the petitioner.    Case: Satwant Singh Sanghera Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxW.P.(C) 13765/2024 & CM APPL. 57690/2024  For more information contact us on : +919975637699 or   visit our website www.sachinpkumar.com #delhihighcourt #taxdemand #taxliability #refund #tds #section205 #incometaxact

The assessee, primarily earning from agricultural sales, faced an addition under Section 69A for not explaining his income sources. The court found that due to demonetization, the assessee had to deposit demonetized currency from agricultural earnings into his bank account, along with ₹4 lakhs from previous savings. This explanation was accepted, leading to the deletion of the addition against the assessee. Sunil Solanki v. Income Tax Officer [ITA No. 95/RPR/2024 dated 08/04/2024]AY 2017-18 For more information contact us on : +919975637699 or visit our website www.sachinpkumar.com #Section69A #Demonetization #Agriculturalearnings #courtorders