-
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)
-
Contingencies for filing appeal before CIT(A) as listed in clause (ii) and (iii) of Sec 246A arise out of assessment proceedings u/s 143 or 144 but the contingency in Sec 246A(i) is a standalone postulate and is not dependant purely on the assessment proceedings u/s 143 or 144.
GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20504 (SC) · Section 115QA
-
Though the return was filed, there was nothing done by the Department on the same especially since six years had elapsed by the time the return was filed. It cannot be said that the income that was added on to the assessee had already suffered capital gains tax at the hands of the mother.
Harris Joseph Vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax II
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20501 (SC)
-
Condonation of delay of 1754 days: If the stand of the Applicant in the Affidavit that he had no knowledge about the passing of the order is not expressly refuted by the Respondent, the question of disbelieving the stand of the Applicant cannot arise. For this reason, indulgence should be shown to the Applicant by condoning the delay
Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20478 (SC)
-
The scheme of Section 11A of the Act does not contemplate that before issuance of any show cause notice, there must, prima facie, be: (a) a preliminary determination that the process or activity undertaken in the matter amounts to manufacture; and (b) before arriving at such preliminary determination, any hearing to the concerned person is contemplated.
KRISHNA WAX (P)LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20470 (SC)
-
Unless that fact was to be refuted, the question of disbelieving the stand taken by the appellant(s) on affidavit, cannot arise and for which reason, the High Court should have shown indulgence to the appellant(s) by condoning the delay in filing the concerned appeal(s).
Senior Bhosale Estate Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20468 (SC)
-
Sec 184 of the Finance Act, 2017 does not suffer from excessive delegation of legislative functions.
Rojer Mathew Vs South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20433 (SC)
-
HC had firmly rejected petitioner's plea of hostile discrimination as the provision is applicable only to resident taxpayers and it does not apply to domestic companies and non-residents and this HC order is being held.
RAJAN BHATIA Vs CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20407 (SC)
-
Doctrine of mutuality: A club registered as a 'company' u/s 25 of Companies Act is not like other companies as it has no shareholders, no dividends declared, and no distribution of profits takes place. Such clubs cannot be treated as separate in law from their members. The ratio decidendi in Bacha F. Guzdar 27 ITR 1 does not apply to such clubs. When a club supplies goods to its members, there is no "sale" and sales-tax cannot be levied (Bangalore Club 350 ITR 509 (SC), Venkatesh Premises Coop Soc 402 ITR 670 (SC) & other imp judgements referred)
State Of West Bengal vs. Calcutta Club Limited (Supreme Court)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20374 (SC) · Section 25
-
Recall of ex-parte order: A 'power of attorney holder' is an 'agent' and 'Principal Officer' u/s 2(35). If a CA is granted a POA, service upon him of a notice is valid. If a notice is duly served upon the litigant through its authorized representative, and it was provided sufficient opportunity to appear before the Court and contest the matter but the litigant choses to let the matter proceed exparte, the order cannot be recalled
PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20373 (SC) · Section 2(35)
-
Question B raised by the Appellant is a substantial question meriting consideration and the High Court ought to have admitted the appeal even with respect to Question B.
Vodafone Idea Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 17 (1)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20346 (SC) · Section 36(1) (iii)
-
In the present case, there is no possibility of cascading effect nor the issue is involved in group of matters, as such.
S.C.Naregal Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20337 (SC)
-
The Applicant Company was duly served through their authorized representative, and were provided sufficient opportunities to appear before this Court, and contest the matter. The Applicant - Company chose to let the matter proceed exparte. The assessee failed to make out any credible or cogent ground for recall of the judgment.
NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20319 (SC) · Section 68
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.