Search
Advanced Search Search with field filters
/adv
Navigation
Home Go to homepage
/home
Direct Tax Income Tax resources
GST GST Acts, Rules & Case Laws
Company Law Companies Act & SEBI
Due Date Tracker Statutory compliance deadlines
/due
Due Date Calendar Calendar view of compliance deadlines
Daily Digest Today's tax updates and articles
/digest
Landmark Rulings

Supreme Court — Direct Tax

891 rulings

  1. Supreme Court · 12 Jan 2021
    Merely because the investment was considerably large and as noted, several corporate structures were either created or came into play in routing the investment in the assessee through P5AHIML would not be sufficient to brand the transaction as colourable device.

    PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14 Vs M/S. ADITYA BIRLA TELECOM LTD

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26016 (SC) · Section 68

  2. Supreme Court · 12 Jan 2021
    Since the nature of the assessee’s business itself is to receive deposits, Sec. 269SS was inapplicable.

    COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs M/S SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORP. LTD.

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26015 (SC) · Section 269SS

  3. Supreme Court · 12 Jan 2021
    Reopening of assessment beyond 4 years is permitted only if income escapes assessment by way of failure on the part of assessee to disclose all material facts.

    PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL III) & ANR. Vs BPTP LIMITED

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26014 (SC)

  4. Supreme Court · 13 Jan 2021
    The giving of loans by a primary agricultural credit society to non-members is not illegal.

    THE MAVILAYI SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ORS.

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 24992 (SC) · 80P

  5. Supreme Court · 01 Jan 2021
    When the main judgment of the High Court cannot be effected in any manner, no relief can be granted by this Court in the special leave petition filed against order rejecting review application to review the main judgment of the High Court.

    T.K. DAVID Vs KURUPPAMPADY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ORS.

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24931 (SC)

  6. Supreme Court · 22 Dec 2020
    The observation made by ITAT on the doctrine of merger would not hold good.

    GANGADHAR NARSINGDAS AGRAWAL (HUF) Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24859 (SC)

  7. Supreme Court · 21 Dec 2020
    All appointments prior to Feb 12, 2020 would be governed by the parent statutes and rules while the Tribunal Rules 2020 with the modifications suggested by SC would apply to all appointments made after Feb 12, 2020.

    MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24844 (SC)

  8. Supreme Court · 18 Dec 2020
    Assessees have miserably failed to establish the capacity of the source and the genuineness of the transaction.

    SADIQ SHEIKH Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24825 (SC) · Section 68

  9. Supreme Court · 21 Nov 2020
    The principles of natural justice have undergone a sea change. The earlier view that even a small violation would result in the order being rendered a nullity is not correct. Some real prejudice must be caused to the complainant by the refusal to follow natural justice. The prejudice must not merely be the apprehension of a litigant. No prejudice is caused to the person complaining of the breach of natural justice where such person does not dispute the case against him or it. There is a clear distinction between cases where there was no hearing at all and the cases where there was mere technical infringement of the principle (All imp judgements referred)

    State Of U.P vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24735 (SC)

  10. Supreme Court · 04 Dec 2020
    Delay of the respondent in filing a writ petition by itself should not defeat the claim unless the position of the State has been so altered that it cannot be retracted on account of a lapse of time or the inaction of the writ petitioner.

    The State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Brahmputra Mettalics Ltd. Ranchi & Anr.

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24727 (SC)

  11. Supreme Court · 20 Nov 2020
    Requirements of CBDT circular No.7/2016 are duly satisfied in the case of the assessee and hence, once the amount has been offered to tax by its members, the assessee could not be saddled with the liability to pay tax in respect of the same amount.

    THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 Vs M/S BACKBONE PROJECTS LTD.

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24640 (SC)

  12. Supreme Court · 16 Oct 2020
    SC - SLP Dismissed - Writ against case transfer u/s. 127 from Tirunelveli to Madurai dismissed by HC.

    V.V. MINERALS Vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24446 (SC) · Section 127

  13. Supreme Court · 14 Sep 2020
    It may be appropriate to have a Committee of legal experts presided by a retired Judge to give their imprimatur to the settlement so that such apprehensions do not come in the way of arriving at a settlement.

    NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVEDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24232 (SC)

  14. Supreme Court · 08 Sep 2020
    Sec.21AA does not enlarge the field of taxpayers but only plugs evasion as the association of persons must be formed with members who have indeterminate shares in its income or assets, which is not the situation in the present case.

    M/S BANGALORE CLUB Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX & ANR.

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24191 (SC)

  15. Supreme Court · 25 Aug 2020
    Capital gains shall be deemed to have accrued (1) upon making the award (in case of ordinary acquisition u/s 16 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894) or (2) after expiry of 15 days from the date of publication of notification u/s 9(1) of the 1894 Act (in case of urgent acquisition).

    RAJ PAL SINGH Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23109 (SC)

  16. Supreme Court · 12 Aug 2020
    Even after non-disclosure, if the documents on record conclusively establish that the receipt did not give rise to any taxable income, it would not be open for the AO to reopen the assessment.

    ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs THE SWASTIC SAFE DEPOSIT AND INVESTMENTS LTD.

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23043 (SC)

  17. Supreme Court · 11 Aug 2020
    The High Court committed manifest error in interfering with and in particular reversing the well considered decision of the first appellate Court, which had justly concluded that document executed between the parties was merely a memorandum of settlement, and it did not require registration.

    Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. Vs Manjit Kaur & Ors.

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23031 (SC)

  18. Supreme Court · 29 Jul 2020
    Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not limited only to the amount outstanding and this provision equally applies in relation to the expenses that had already been incurred and paid by the assessee.

    SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT COMPANY Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22958 (SC) · Section 40(a)(ia)

  19. Supreme Court · 22 Jul 2020
    There was no colourable device involved in having two separate agreements for two entirely separate and distinct purposes.

    SHIV RAJ GUPTA Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22919 (SC)

  20. Supreme Court · 22 Jul 2020
    The Mumbai PO would fall within clause (e) of Article 5(4) of the DTAA, inasmuch as PO was solely an auxiliary office, meant to act as a liaison office between the assessee and ONGC.

    DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-II (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) Vs M/S SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22918 (SC)

Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.


An unhandled error has occurred. Reload ×

Rejoining the server...

Rejoin failed... trying again in seconds.

Failed to rejoin.
Please retry or reload the page.

The session has been paused by the server.

Failed to resume the session.
Please retry or reload the page.