-
Already having invoked powers u/s.245, Revenue cannot withheld the admitted refundable amount on the ground that the respondents may have a future demand against the petitioner arising out of the pending assessment orders.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. Vs VODAFONE IDEA LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22917 (SC)
-
S. 28(v-a): There is a dichotomy between receipt of compensation by an assessee for the loss of agency and receipt of compensation attributable to the negative/restrictive covenant. The compensation received for the loss of agency is a revenue receipt whereas the compensation attributable to a negative/ restrictive covenant is a capital receipt. Payment received as non-competition fee under a negative covenant was always treated as a capital receipt till AY 2003-2004. It is only w.e.f. 1-4-2003 that the said capital receipt is now made taxable u/s 28(v-a). It is well settled that a liability cannot be created retrospectively (All imp judgements referred)
Shiv Raj Gupta vs. CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22915 (SC) · Section S. 28(v-a)
-
A reading of the Board Resolution would show that the Project Office was established to coordinate and execute delivery documents in connection with construction of offshore platform modification of existing facilities for ONGC. Unfortunately, the ITAT relied upon only the first paragraph of the Board Resolution, and then jumped to the conclusion that the Mumbai office was for coordination and execution of the project itself. The finding, therefore, that the Mumbai office was not a mere liaison office, but was involved in the core activity of execution of the project itself is therefore clearly perverse.
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-II (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) NEW DELHI & ANR. VERSUS M/S SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22914 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83106&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Clearly, without any recorded reasons and without framing any substantial question of law on whether the said amount could be taxed under any other provision of the Income Tax Act, the High Court went ahead and held that the amount of INR 6.6 crores received by the assessee was received as part of the full value of sale consideration paid for transfer of shares – and not for handing over management and control of CDBL and is consequently not taxable under Section 28(ii)(a).
SHIV RAJ GUPTA VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI-IV
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22912 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83105&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Non-rejection of assessee's explanation in the assessment order would amount to the AO accepting assessee's view, thus forming an opinion.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 12(3)(2) Vs MARICO LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22800 (SC)
-
Though the expressions expert information and advice, analysis, technical guidance etc., have been used in the agreements but, these expressions cannot be read out of context and de hors the purpose of the agreement.
RAMNATH & CO. Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22799 (SC) · Section 80-O
-
It is always open to an assessee to hold the same class of assets as investment and also as stock in trade. There is no bar in law for a person dealing in land to also have investment in land.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs M/S JOGANI AND DIALANI LAND DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22798 (SC)
-
S. 147: The reasons in support of the s. 148 notice is the very issue in respect of which the AO had raised a query during the assessment proceedings and the Petitioner had responded justifying its stand. The non-rejection of the explanation in the Assessment Order amounts to the AO accepting the view of the assessee, thus taking a view/forming an opinion. In these circumstances, the reasons in support of the notice proceed on a mere change of opinion and would be completely without jurisdiction
ACIT vs. Marico Ltd
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22665 (SC) · Section 147
-
(i) The sweeping proposition in some Supreme Court decisions that when two views are possible, the one favourable to assessee has to be preferred & that a tax incentive provision must receive liberal interpretation, is disapproved by the Constitution Bench in Dilip Kumar (2018) 9 SCC 1 (FB). The burden is on the assessee to prove eligibility to an incentive or exemption provision and it is subject to strict interpretation.
Ramnath & Co vs. CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22650 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83564&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
(i) The sweeping proposition in some Supreme Court decisions that when two views are possible, the one favourable to assessee has to be preferred & that a tax incentive provision must receive liberal interpretation, is disapproved by the Constitution Bench in Dilip Kumar (2018) 9 SCC 1 (FB). The burden is on the assessee to prove eligibility to an incentive or exemption provision and it is subject to strict interpretation. If there is ambiguity, the benefit of the ambiguity has to go to the Revenue. However, if the assessee proves eligibility, a wide and liberal construction of the provision has to be done (ii) Merely having a contract with a foreign enterprise and mere earning foreign exchange does not ipso facto lead to the application of s. 80-O of the Act (All judgements considered in detail)
Ramnath & Co vs. CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22649 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83564&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
No appeal to be time barred in the wake of Coronavirus shutdown of.
IN RE : COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22618 (SC)
-
The notice issued to the assessee shows sufficient reasons to believe on the part of the assessing officer to reopen the assessment but since the revenue has failed to show nondisclosure of facts the notice having been issued after a period of 4 years is required to be quashed.
NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD. Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22586 (SC)
-
Intimation in Form-10 for the purposes of claiming the benefit of the Section 11 could be furnished by the assessee even during the assessment proceedings.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) Vs SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES PARKS OF INDIA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22581 (SC) · Section 11
-
The activities of LO are in the nature of preparatory or auxiliary character in terms of Article 5(3)(e).
Union of India & Anr. Vs U.A.E. Exchange Centre
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22568 (SC)
-
The factual basis on which the Officer formed his opinion in the assessment order in regard to addition of Rs.2,26,000/ stands dispelled by the affidavits and statements of the concerned unregistered dealers in penalty proceedings. In such situation, the addition of amount of Rs.2,26,000/- cannot be justified, much less, maintained.
Basir Ahmed Sisodiya Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22567 (SC) · Section 68
-
Section 43B is a mix bag and new and dissimilar entries have been inserted therein from time to time to cater to different fiscal scenarios. The broad objective of enacting Section 43B concerning specified deductions referred to therein was to protect larger public interest primarily of revenue including welfare of the employees and Clause (f) fit into that scheme and shared sufficient nexus with the broad objective.
Union of India & Ors. Vs Exide Industries Limited & Anr.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22566 (SC) · Section 43B
-
The assessee company was formed to manage business on behalf of the holding company the purported mutual concern in the present case undertakes a commercial venture.
Yum! Restaurants (Marketing) Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22565 (SC)
-
While exercising plenary powers bestowed under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice, the court should bear in mind the legislative intent and should not render the provision otiose.
Assistant Commissioner (CT) Vs M/s. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22535 (SC)
-
The obligation to deduct Tax at Source under Section 194E of the Act is not affected by the DTAA and in case the exigibility to tax is disputed by the assesse on whose account the deduction is made, the benefit of DTAA can be pleaded and if the case is made out, the amount in question will always be refunded with interest.
PILCOM Vs C.I.T. WEST BENGAL-VII
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22533 (SC) · Section 194E
-
If the return itself is under probe and scrutiny, such return cannot be the foundation to sustain a claim for refund till such scrutiny is not complete.
VODAFONE IDEA LTD. Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22532 (SC) · Section 143(1D)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.