Search
Advanced Search Search with field filters
/adv
Navigation
Home Go to homepage
/home
Direct Tax Income Tax resources
GST GST Acts, Rules & Case Laws
Company Law Companies Act & SEBI
Due Date Tracker Statutory compliance deadlines
/due
Due Date Calendar Calendar view of compliance deadlines
Daily Digest Today's tax updates and articles
/digest
Landmark Rulings

Supreme Court — Direct Tax

891 rulings

  1. Supreme Court · 14 Aug 2019
    The law on the point as regards applicability of the requirement of notice u/s 143(2) is quite clear from the decision in Blue Moon’s case. The issue that however needs to be considered is the impact of Section 292BB. According to Section 292BB, if the assessee had participated in the proceedings, by way of legal fiction, notice would be deemed to be valid even if there be infractions as detailed in said Section.

    COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS LAXMAN DAS KHANDELWAL

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19851 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79555&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  2. Supreme Court · 14 Aug 2019
    In view of the guidelines issued by the CBDT in Instruction No.3/2003 the Tribunal was right in observing that by not making reference to the TPO, the AO had breached the mandatory instructions issued by the CBDT. We do not find the conclusion so arrived at by the Tribunal to be incorrect.

    THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. S.G. ASIA HOLDINGS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19850 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79556&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  3. Supreme Court · 09 Aug 2019
    Revenue's SLP challenging Bombay HC order quashing re-assessment notice (initiated beyond 4 years) issued on assessee (an asset reconstruction and securitization company) for AY 2011-12 is dismissed.

    Asset Reconstruction Company India Pvt. Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19827 (SC)

  4. Supreme Court · 06 Aug 2019
    The amount received by assessee on sale of prepaid cards to the extent of unutilized talk time did not accrue as income in the year of sale.

    SHYAM TELELINK LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19799 (SC)

  5. Supreme Court · 02 Aug 2019
    Disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) would not affect the assessee's liability to tax as even if the amount are disallowed and added to assessee's income, the same would be exempted u/s. 10A.

    BMC SOFTWARE INDIA PVT. LTD Vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19778 (SC) · Sections 10A, 40(a)(ia)

  6. Supreme Court · 30 Jul 2019
    These findings have been recorded in conformity with the requirements of Section 269UD(1) of the Act and hence deserve to be upheld.

    Krishna Kumar Rawat & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19776 (SC)

  7. Supreme Court · 30 Jul 2019
    Taxation regime applicable to non-residents need not be identical to that applicable to residents.

    Rajan Bhatia Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes Through Chairman & Anr

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19775 (SC) · Section 115BBDA

  8. Supreme Court · 27 Jul 2019
    S. 35AC(7) is prospective in nature. A plea of promissory estoppel is not available to an assessee against the exercise of legislative power nor any vested right accrues to an assessee in the matter of grant of any tax concession to him. In a taxing statute, a plea based on equity or/and hardship is not legally sustainable. The constitutional validity of any provision and especially taxing provision cannot be struck down on such reasoning. In tax matters, neither any equity nor hardship has any role to play while deciding the rights of any taxpayer qua the Revenue

    Prashanti Medical Services & Research Foundation vs. UOI

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19759 (SC) · Section 35AC(7)

  9. Supreme Court · 27 Jul 2019
    S. 68 Bogus Purchases: Despite admission by the assessee that the purchases were mere accommodation entries, the entire expenditure cannot be disallowed. Only the profit embedded in the purchases covered by the bogus bills can be taxed. The GP rate disclosed by the assessee cannot be disturbed in the absence of incriminating material to discard the book results

    PCIT vs. Paramshakti Distributors Pvt. Ltd

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19758 (SC) · Section 68

  10. Supreme Court · 27 Jul 2019
    S. 170/ 292BB: A notice issued in the name of the amalgamating entity after amalgamation is void because the amalgamating entity ceases to exist. Participation in the proceedings by the assessee cannot operate as an estoppel against law. This is a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to in s. 292BB. There is a value which the court must abide by in promoting the interest of certainty in tax litigation. Not doing so will only result in uncertainty and displacement of settled expectations. There is a significant value which must attach to observing the requirement of consistency and certainty. Individual affairs are conducted and business decisions are made in the expectation of consistency, uniformity and certainty. To detract from those principles is neither expedient nor desirable.

    PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19757 (SC) · Sections 170, 292BB

  11. Supreme Court · 25 Jul 2019
    The issuance of jurisdictional notice and the assessment order thereafter passed in the name of non-existing company is a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to in Section 292B.

    Pr. CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19738 (SC)

  12. Supreme Court · 25 Jul 2019
    Once the action is held in accordance with law and especially in tax matters, the question of invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution does not arise.

    Prashanti Medical Services &Research Foundation Vs Union of India & Ors.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19737 (SC) · Section 35AC

  13. Supreme Court · 24 Jul 2019
    HC ought not to have interfered with ITAT's order as no substantial question of law arose therefrom. SC thus allowed assessee's appeal and set aside the HC order and reinstated ITAT order.

    PURSHOTTAM KHATRI Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19728 (SC)

  14. Supreme Court · 24 Jul 2019
    Once arm's length principle has been satisfied, there can be no further profit attributable to a person even if it has a PE in India.

    Honda Motors Co. Ltd Vs ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19727 (SC)

  15. Supreme Court · 23 Jul 2019
    Four years timeframe for completion of project, by no standards, can be said to be unreasonable, harsh, absurd or incapable of compliance.

    Global Estates Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19719 (SC) · Section 80IB(10)

  16. Supreme Court · 20 Jul 2019
    S. 4: The primary liability and onus is on the Dept to prove that a certain receipt is liable to be taxed. Deposits collected by a finance company are capital receipts and not revenue receipts. The fact that the deposits are credited to the profit and loss account is irrelevant. The true nature of the receipts have to be seen and not the entry in the books of account (All imp judgements referred).

    The Peerless General Finance And Investment Co Ltd vs. CIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19710 (SC) · Section 4

  17. Supreme Court · 20 Jul 2019
    S. 80IB(10)(a): There shall be stay of judgement in Global Reality 379 ITR 107 (MP) where it was held that issuance of completion certificate, after the cut off date by the Local Authority but, mentioning the date of completion of project before the cut off date, does not fulfill the condition specified in clause (a) of Section 80IB (10) read with Explanation (ii) thereunder

    Global Estates vs. CIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19708 (SC) · Section 80IB(10)(a)

  18. Supreme Court · 19 Jul 2019
    The new and amended method of accounting for NPAs was declared and notified in clear words. We therefore do not see any reason and ground to interfere with the finding on absence of failure to disclose full and true material facts.

    PUNJAB AND SIND BANK Vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19692 (SC)

  19. Supreme Court · 18 Jul 2019
    It is true that there was no direct focus of the Court on whether subscriptions so received are capital or revenue in nature, we may still advert to the fact that this Court has also, on general principles, held that such subscriptions would be capital receipts, and if they were treated to be income, this would violate the Companies Act.

    THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19674 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79207&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  20. Supreme Court · 18 Jul 2019
    The proper remedy of the petitioner-assessee would be to raise all pleas before the AO in assessment proceedings and if it is decided against him then to carry the issue further in appeal to CIT (Appeals) and then to the Tribunal in second appeal and then to the High Court under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, if the occasion so arises in appeal.

    MURLIBHAI FATANDAS SAWLANI VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19673 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79208&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.


An unhandled error has occurred. Reload ×

Rejoining the server...

Rejoin failed... trying again in seconds.

Failed to rejoin.
Please retry or reload the page.

The session has been paused by the server.

Failed to resume the session.
Please retry or reload the page.