-
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
-
Assessee is directed to raise its grievance before the appellate forum in case the assessee felt that there has been an infraction of the procedure, or the principles of natural justice in the matter of framing of the reassessment order.
M/S ADITI INFRABUILD AND SERVICES LTD Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20658 (SC)
-
Rules of procedure have been construed to be the handmaiden of justice. The purpose of assessment proceedings is to assess the tax liability of an assessee correctly in accordance with law.
DALMIA POWER LIMITED & ANR Vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20646 (SC) · Section 139(5)
-
SC - No TDS u/s 194H on Prasar Bharati's commission payments to advertising agencies.
Prasar Bharati Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20616 (SC) · Section 194H
-
S. 4/ 56: Amount received by assessee for relinquishing secretaryship of educational society cannot be treated as a capital receipt. The question of the principle of capital asset being invoked does not arise. The receipt is assessable as income from other sources. It may have been a different matter if it was a case of life time appointment of the assessee as Secretary of the concerned Institution but no such evidence was produced by the assessee (CIT vs. Ramachandra Rao 330 ITR 0322 affirmed)
H. S. Ramchandra Rao vs. CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20581 (SC) · Sections 4, 56
-
We uphold the conclusion reached by the High Court that the amount received in the hands of appellant-assessee cannot be treated as capital receipt. Thus, the order of the Assessing Officer is affirmed. Hence, no interference is warranted in this appeal.
H.S.RAMCHANDRA RAO Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20563 (SC)
-
The PCIT was right in concluding that neither of the Petitioners had made a full and true disclosure of all material facts.
Ankush Jain Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 4
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20546 (SC)
-
Appeal u/s 246A reg denial of liability to pay buy-back tax u/s 115QA: The expression “denies his liability to be assessed” in s. 246A takes within its fold every case where the assessee denies his liability to be assessed under the Act. It is not confined to the liability to be assessed u/s 143(3) but applies also to the liability to pay tax u/s 115QA. If there is adequate appellate remedy, a Writ Petition under Article 226 cannot be entertained (Kanpur Coal Syndicate 53 ITR 225 (SC) & Chhabil Dass Agarwal 357 ITR 357 (SC) followed)
Genpact India Private Limited vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20542 (SC) · Sections 246A, 115QA
-
The LTCG booked by assessee were bogus & a major part of accommodation entries scheme.
SUMAN PODDAR Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20517 (SC)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.