-
The High Court ought not to have dismissed the petition on the ground of delay, it would be appropriate and proper, in the interests of justice, for the writ petition to be heard on merits by the High Court, subject to payment of costs, which would be a condition precedent.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 4 Vs Income Tax Settlement Commission & Anr
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21078 (SC)
-
The term possession in Sec. 53A of TOPA is a legal concept which denotes control over the land and not actual physical occupation of the land.
M/S SESHASAYEE STEELS P. LTD. Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21054 (SC) · Section 2(47)(v)
-
U/s 43B(a), deduction is allowed on “any sum payable by the assessee by way of tax, duty, cess or fee.” The scheme of s. 43B is to allow deduction when the sum is actually paid. (i) The credit of Excise Duty earned under MODVAT scheme is not sum payable by the assessee by way of tax, duty, cess. It is merely the incident of Excise Duty that has shifted from the manufacturer to the purchaser and not the liability to the same. Consequently, the unutilised credit under MODVAT scheme does not qualify for deduction u/s 43B. (ii) The sales tax paid by the appellant was debited to a separate account titled ‘Sales Tax recoverable account’ and is liable for disallowance u/s 43B.
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs. CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21045 (SC) · Section 43B(a)
-
S. 68 Bogus share capital/ premium: Application seeking open court oral hearing is rejected. There is no substance in the Review Petition seeking review of PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC) and the same is dismissed
NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd vs. PCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21018 (SC) · Section 68
-
Direction for refund was applicable if no notice would be issued within the time stipulated. In any case, the learned judges had the option to treat the writ petition as an execution application or could have given liberty to the appellant to file an execution application which as per the law of limitation can be filed within 12 years. This aspect has been completely over-looked and not been given due consideration.
KISHORE JAGJIVANDAS TANNA VERSUS JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.) & ANR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21003 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82060&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Condonation of delay: There are large gaps which are unexplained. It is not known whether any action was taken against the officers who are responsible for the inordinate delay. The highest Court cannot be a walk in place to file any time irrespective of period of limitation prescribed. To blame it on the inefficiency of the administration is no more good excuse. Administration directed to hold an inquiry into the aspect as to who is responsible for such inordinate delay and take suitable action against the officers concerned (Post Master General vs. Living Media (2012) 3 SCC 563 referred)
Administrator vs. Swarn Theater
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20999 (SC)
-
The proviso to Section 43B provides that nothing contained in the Section shall apply in relation to any sum which is actually paid by assessee on or before due date applicable in his case for furnishing the return in respect of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred. The crucial words in the proviso to Section 43B are in respect of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred.
MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS MARUTI UDYOG LTD.) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20990 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82045&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The credit of Excise Duty earned by the appellant under MODVAT scheme as per Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not sum payable by the assessee by way of tax, duty, cess.
MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20989 (SC) · Section 43B
-
Assessee's review petition is dismissed finding no substance in the submissions in the petition.
NRA IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD. Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 1
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20988 (SC) · Section 68
-
Remedies by way of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are extraordinary remedies exercised under the plenary jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution on the superior courts. The Constitution does not prescribe any limitation period for invoking writ jurisdiction.
KISHORE JAGJIVANDAS TANNA Vs JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.) & ANR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20986 (SC)
-
The the AO disallowed the above amount without conducting any inquiry of the fact whether there was any loss on account of the fluctuation in the foreign exchange and rate of the US Dollar within the relevant time. The disallowance could not have been without a preceding inquiry into the claim made by the Assessee.
Albasta Wholesale Services Ltd Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax I
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20832 (SC)
-
Merely because at the time of condoning the delay no such condition was imposed that the claimants shall not be entitled to the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the period of delay, the appellant who is otherwise a public body cannot be saddled with the liability to pay the interest for the period of delay, which is not at all attributed to them.
The Executive Engineer Vs The State of Maharashtra & Others Etc.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20825 (SC)
-
It is not the intention of the Legislature that any person who sets up a hotel within the time limits indicated in the State of Uttarakhand, without any regard to the exact location, and the manner in which it operates, its impact on the nature , all such hotels should be entitled to claim the benefit.
M/S. ANCHAL HOTELS PVT. LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20801 (SC) · Section 80IC
-
S. 139(5)/ 170: The consequence of amalgamation is that the amalgamating companies lose their separate identity and cease to exist. The successor is obliged u/s 170 to file a revised return to reflect the effect of the amalgamation. The fact that the revised return is filed after the due date specified in s. 139(5) is irrelevant as the scheme approved by the NCLT provides for it. The assessee is also not required to seek condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) (Dalmia Power 418 ITR 242 (Mad) reversed)
Dalmia Power Limited vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20703 (SC) · Sections 139(5), 170
-
It is well-settled that the dismissal of an SLP against an order or judgment of a lower forum is not an affirmation of the same. If such an order of this Court is non-speaking, it does not constitute a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution, or attract the doctrine of merger. In such a situation, it is open for us to proceed to decide the instant appeals uninfluenced by the prior orders of this Court dismissing SLPs against the grant of relief to drivers placed similarly as the Appellants.
P. Singaravelan & Ors. Etc. Etc Vs The District Collector, Tiruppur and DT & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20694 (SC)
-
If at this stage the inordinate delay is condoned unmindful of the lackadaisical manner in which the appellant has proceeded in the matter, it would also be contrary to public interest.
University of Delhi Vs Union of India & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20683 (SC)
-
Condonation of delay of 916 days: While a liberal approach is to be taken in the matter of condonation of delay & the consideration does not depend on the status of the party, even so the condonation of long delay should not be automatic since the accrued right or adverse consequence to the opposite party is also to be kept in perspective. While considering condonation of delay, routine explanation is not enough but it should be in the nature of indicating “sufficient cause” to justify the delay which will depend on the backdrop of each case and will have to be weighed carefully by the Courts based on the fact situation (Mst Katiji 1987(2) SCC 107 distinguished)
University of Delhi vs. UOI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20682 (SC)
-
Effect of dismissal of SLP: It is well-settled that the dismissal of an SLP by the Supreme Court against an order or judgment of a lower forum is not an affirmation of the same. If such an order is non-speaking, it does not constitute a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution, or attract the doctrine of merger
P. Singaravelan vs. District Collector
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20681 (SC)
-
There is no reason to deny payment of interest to the deductor who had deducted tax at source and deposited the same with the Treasury.
Universal Cables Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income-Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20675 (SC) · Section 244A
-
S. 244A: Interest on refund is compensation for unauthorized retention of money by the Department. When the collection is illegal & amount is refunded, it should carry interest in the matter of course. There is no reason to deny payment of interest to the deductor who had deducted tax at source and deposited the same with the Treasury. The Department is directed to pay interest as prescribed u/s 244-A at the earliest (UOI vs. Tata Chemicals 363 ITR 658 (SC) followed)
Universal Cables Ltd vs. CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20664 (SC) · Section 244A
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.