-
(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)
-
In the present case, the Non-resident Sports Associations had participated in the event, where cricket teams of these Associations had played various matches in the country. Though the payments were described as Guarantee Money, they were intricately connected with the event where various cricket teams were scheduled to play and did participate in the event. The source of income, as rightly contended by the Revenue, was in the playing of the matches in India.
PILCOM VERSUS C.I.T. WEST BENGAL-VII
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22437 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82882&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
What is prohibited is the infusion of a participant in the transaction who does not become a ‘member’ of the common fund, at par with other members, and yet participates either in the contribution or surplus without subjecting itself to mutual rights and obligations. The principle of common identity prohibits any one dimensional alteration in the nature of participation in the mutual fund as the transaction fructifies.
YUM! RESTAURANTS (MARKETING) PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22425 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82869&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
From 1983 onwards, Section 43B had taken within its fold diverse nature of deductions, ranging from tax, duty to bonus, commission, railway fee, interest on loans and general provisions for welfare of employees. An external examination of this journey of Section 43B reveals that the legislature never restricted it to a particular category of deduction and that intent cannot be read into the main Section by the Court, while sitting in judicial review.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS EXIDE INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ANR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22421 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82860&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The appellate authority vide order dated 13.1.2011, had not only accepted the explanation offered by the appellant/assessee but also recorded a clear finding of fact that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income by the appellant/assessee for the assessment year 1998-1999.
BASIR AHMED SISODIYA VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22420 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82861&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The expression business connection can be discerned from Section 9(1), as also, the meaning of expression business activity. We will advert to those provisions a little later and for the time being, assume that the stated activities of the respondent are business activities. However, since the stated activities of the liaison offices of the respondent in India are of preparatory or auxiliary character, the same would fall within the excepted category under Article 5(3)(e) of the DTAA.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. VERSUS U.A.E. EXCHANGE CENTRE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22419 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82862&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Coercive Recovery of taxes etc during Corona Virus crisis: The orders of the Allahabad & Kerala High Courts directing the authorities to defer coercive recovery of taxes is stayed in view of the stand of the Government that the Government is fully conscious of the prevailing situation and would itself evolve a proper mechanism to assuage concerns and hardships of every one
UOI vs. P. D. Sunny
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22290 (SC)
-
Supreme court is granting the stay in view of the stand taken by the Government of India through learned Solicitor General, before us, that the Government is fully conscious of the prevailing situation and would itself evolve a proper mechanism to assuage concerns and hardships of every one.
UNION OF INDIA Vs P.D. SUNNY & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22282 (SC)
-
In the present case, not even whisper, that claim of 100% depreciation by the assessee, 25% of which was disallowed was with intend to evade tax. It was due to bonafide mistake and oversight that the assessee claimed 100% depreciation instead of 75%. In claiming 100% depreciation there was no intention to evade tax and the said claim was only a bonafide mistake.
RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(ASSESSMENT) & ANR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22279 (SC) · Section 143(1-A)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.