-
Benami Transactions: While considering whether a particular transaction is benami, the intention of the person who contributed the purchase money is determinative. The intention has to be decided on the basis of surrounding circumstances; relationship of parties; motives governing their action in bringing about the transaction and subsequent conduct. The payment of part sale consideration & stamp duty cannot be the sole criteria to hold the sale/transaction as benami
Mangathai Ammal vs. Rajeswari
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19288 (SC)
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - HC had quashed block-assessment u/s. 158BC, on the ground that no formal notice u/s.143(2) was issued to assessee.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3 Vs DEVENDRANATH G. CHATURVEDI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19260 (SC) · Section 143(2)
-
SC - Order denying extension of time-limit for installment payment under IDS, 2016 set aside.
Dal Chandra Rastogi Vs CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES & ANR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19259 (SC)
-
SC - HC failed to frame the substantial question of law as per Sec.260A(3).
Ryatar Sahakari Sakkarre Karkhane Niyamit Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income TaxC1 & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19183 (SC)
-
S. 260A: The High Court cannot hear the appeal bipartite without framing any substantial question of law. It should either dismiss the appeal in limine on the ground that the appeal does not involve any substantial question or hear the parties after framing a question (see also PCIT vs. A. A. Estate Pvt. Ltd (SC)
PCIT vs. Yes Bank Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19148 (SC) · Section 260A
-
S. 43B: The conversion of outstanding interest into loan does not amount to "actual payment" of the interest in order to qualify for deduction in view of the retrospective insertion of Explanation 3C to s. 43B (Eicher Motors 315 ITR 312 (MP) & Pennar Profiles (T&AP) approved)
CIT vs. Gujarat Cypromet Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19147 (SC) · Section 43B
-
S. 260A: There is a distinction between questions proposed by the appellant for admission of the appeal (u/s 260¬A(2)(c)) and the questions framed by the Court (u/s 260¬A(3)). The High Court has to formulate substantial question of law and only thereafter hear the appeal on merits. If the High Court is of the view that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law, it should record a categorical finding to that effect & dismiss the appeal in limine. However, it cannot, without admitting the appeal and framing any question of law, issue notice to the respondent, hear both parties on the questions urged by the appellant and dismiss it. This is not in conformity with the mandatory procedure prescribed in s. 260¬A
PCIT vs. A. A. Estate Pvt. Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19082 (SC) · Section 260A
-
Benami Transactions: In considering whether a particular transaction is benami, six circumstances can be taken as a guide: (1) source from which purchase money came; (2) nature and possession of property, after purchase; (3) motive, if any, for giving transaction a benami colour; (4) position of parties and relationship, if any, between claimant and alleged benamidar; (5) custody of title deeds after sale & (6) conduct of parties in dealing with the property after sale. Mere fact that financial assistance was given is not a determinative factor (All imp judgements referred)
P. Leelavathi vs. V. Shankarnarayana Rao
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18060 (SC)
-
Benami Transactions: In considering whether a particular transaction is benami, six circumstances can be taken as a guide: (1) source from which purchase money came; (2) nature and possession of property, after purchase; (3) motive, if any, for giving transaction a benami colour; (4) position of parties and relationship, if any, between claimant and alleged benamidar; (5) custody of title deeds after sale & (6) conduct of parties in dealing with the property after sale. Mere fact that financial assistance was given is not a determinative factor (All imp judgements referred)
P. Leelavathi vs. V. Shankarnarayana Rao
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18052 (SC)
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - HC had held that TDS u/s.194A not applicable on payment of interest by a State owned housing development co. for delayed delivery of plot.
West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18046 (SC)
-
If an amount (Dharmada, Charity) is paid at the time of the sale transaction for a purpose other than the price of the goods, it cannot form part of the transaction value. Such payment is not for the transaction of sale and cannot be treated as consideration for the goods. The fact that the payment is compulsory upon purchase does not mean that it is involuntary because the purchaser purchases the goods out of his own volition (All imp judgements referred)
D. J. Malpani vs. CCE
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18032 (SC)
-
S. 142(2C) Special Audit/ Interpretation of statutes: The AO who has fixed the time in the first instance must necessarily, as an incident of the authority to fix time, be entitled to suo moto extend time without an application by the assessee. The amendment by FA 2008 was intended to remove an ambiguity and is clarificatory in nature. There exists a presumption of retrospective application in regard to amendments which are of a procedural nature
CIT vs. Ram Kishan Dass
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18019 (SC) · Section 142(2C)
-
S. 147 Reopening: High Court should decide (i) validity of s. 148 notice where assessment is made u/s 143(1) & not u/s 143(3), (ii) whether notice can be said to be based on change of opinion if there is no foundation to form any such opinion, (iii) Whether requirements of s. 148 are satisfied, namely, that it contains the facts constituting the "reasons to believe" and furnishes the necessary details for assessing the escaped income and (iv) whether finding recorded by ITAT on merits is legally sustainable
PCIT vs. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18018 (SC) · Section 147
-
S. 68 Bogus Share Premium: No reason to interfere. SLP dismissed. High Court held there is no limitation on the amount of premium that can be charged. The AO cannot question the transaction merely because he thinks the investor could have managed by paying a lesser amount as share premium. It is the prerogative of the Board of Directors to decide the premium and it is the wisdom of the shareholder whether they want to subscribe to shares at such a premium or not. S. 68 does not apply as the funds were received through banking channels and the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the investors was established
PCIT vs. Chain House International (P) Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18017 (SC) · Section 68
-
S. 14A/ Rule 8D: In the absence of any exempt income, disallowance u/s 14A & Rule 8D of the Act of any amount is not permissible (Essar Teleholdings 401 ITR 445 (SC) followed, Cheminvest 378 ITR 33 (Del) approved)
PCIT vs. Oil Industry Development Board
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17997 (SC) · Section 14A
-
Articles 136, 141: Entire law on legal effect of dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) by a speaking/ non-speaking order explained. If the dismissal is by a speaking order & reasons are given, the same is a declaration of law which is binding under Article 141. The findings are also binding by way of judicial discipline. However, this does not mean that the order of the lower court has merged in the dismissal order of the Supreme Court
Khoday Distilleries Ltd vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Kharkhane Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17994 (SC)
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - HC had rejected assessee's Sec. 12A registration claim with retrospective effect.
KERALA CRICKET ASSOCIATION Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17941 (SC) · Section 12A
-
SC - Deduction u/s.36(1)(iii) available with respect to funds given to subsidiaries where the interest free funds available to assessee were sufficient to meet its investment.
Reliance Industries Ltd Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16902 (SC) · Section 36(1)(iii)
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - The attempt to blame the Chartered Accountant cannot result in the assessee's exoneration, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was rightly imposed.
M/S. JIVANLAL AND SONS VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13 (2)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16896 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75623&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 14A/ 36(1)(iii): If the interest free funds available to the assessee are sufficient to meet its investment, it could be presumed that the investments are made from the interest free funds available with the assessee and not from borrowed funds
CIT vs. Reliance Industries Limited
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16893 (SC) · Section 14A/ 36(1)(iii)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.