-
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)
-
Attachment of property under Schedule II: Unless there is preference given to the Crown debt by a statute, the dues of a secured creditor have preference over Crown debts. As a charge over the property was created much prior to the notice issued by the TRO under Rule 2 of Schedule II to the Act and the sale of the property was pursuant to the order passed by the DRT, the sale is valid
Connectwell Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22237 (SC)
-
On the issue whether communication dated 22.03.2018 was in the nature of determination of the liability, both the learned counsel were heard at considerable length, at the end of which it was agreed by Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned Advocate for the Department, that the communication dated 22.03.2018 could be treated as a show cause notice and the Department be permitted to conclude the issue within a reasonable time, provided the interim order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court on 03.04.2018 was continued.
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LIMITED VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER -UNIT -1
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21214 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82629&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
As the charge over the property was created much prior to the issuance of notice under Rule 2 of Schedule II to the Act by Respondent No.4 (TRO), we find force in the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant., directs MIDC to issue 'no objection' certificate to the appellant.
Connectwell Industries Pvt. Ltd Vs Union of India
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21202 (SC)
-
S. 153C: Compliance with the requirements of s. 153C is mandatory. (i) If the AO of the searched person is different from the AO of the other person, the AO of the searched person is required to transmit the satisfaction note & seized documents to the AO of the other person. He is also required to make a note in the file of the searched person that he has done so. However, the same is for administrative convenience and the failure by the AO of the searched person to make a note in the file of the searched person, will not vitiate the proceedings u/s 153C. (ii) If the AO of the searched person and the other person is the same, it is sufficient for the AO to note in the satisfaction note that the documents seized from the searched person belonged to the other person. Once the note says so, the requirement of s. 153C is fulfilled. In such case, there can be one satisfaction note prepared by the AO, as he himself is the AO of the searched person and also the AO of the other person. However, he must be conscious and satisfied that the documents seized/recovered from the searched person belonged to the other person. In such a situation, the satisfaction note would be qua the other person. The requirement of transmitting the documents so seized from the searched person would not be there as he himself will be the AO of the searched person and the other person and therefore there is no question of transmitting such seized documents to himself
Super Malls Private Limited vs. PCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21197 (SC) · Section 153C
-
S. 80-IA(4): As per s. 575 of the Companies Act, the conversion of a partnership firm into a company under Part IX causes a statutory vesting of all assets of the firm into the company without the need for a conveyance. The business of the firm is carried on by the company and the latter is eligible for the benefits of s. 80-IA.
CIT vs. Chetak Enterprises Pvt. Ltd
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21195 (SC) · Section 80-IA(4)
-
S. 12AA: Registration can be applied for by a newly registered trust. There is no stipulation that the trust should have already been in existence and should have undertaken any activities before making the application for registration. The term ‘activities’ in s. 12AA includes ‘proposed activities’. The CIT must consider whether the objects of the Trust are genuinely charitable in nature and whether the activities which the Trust proposed to carry on are genuine in the sense that they are in line with the objects of the Trust. However, he cannot refuse registration on the ground that no activities are carried out
M/s Ananda Social And Educational Trust vs. CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21194 (SC) · Section 12AA
-
Where the AO of the searched person and the other person is the same, there can be one satisfaction note prepared by the AO.
M/S SUPER MALLS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21187 (SC)
-
As priori, it must follow that the business is carried on by the enterprise owned by a company registered in India and the agreement entered into between the erstwhile partnership firm and the State Government, by legal implication, assumes the character of an agreement between the company registered in India and the State Government.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s. Chetak Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21186 (SC) · Section 80IA
-
The petitioner is allowed liberty to withdraw the present special leave petition, with further liberty to approach the authority under the Scheme.
INTEC Corporation Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21172 (SC)
-
The amount of Rs.495.24 crores deposited towards payment of tax and the amount of Rs.2806.40 crores which stands deposited and invested in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipts shall be subject to the decision to be taken by the concerned Authority on merits or to such directions as may be issued by the Appellate Authority.
Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21163 (SC)
-
A Commissioner is bound to consider whether the objects of the Trust are genuinely charitable in nature and whether the activities which the Trust proposed to carry on are genuine in the sense that they are in line with the objects of the Trust.
Ananda Social And Educational Trust Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21135 (SC) · Section 12AA
-
Since the issue stands concluded in favour of the assessee there would be no need to continue with the reassessment on that score.
M/S SHIV SHAKTI FLOUR MILLS (P) LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21120 (SC)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.