-
A pronouncement by this Court, even if it cannot be strictly called the ratio decidendi of the judgment, would certainly be binding on the High Court.
The Peerless Gen.Fin And Investment Company Limited Vs Commnr. Of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19651 (SC)
-
Explanation 5A below Section 271 of the Act would apply only in case of searched person and cannot be extended to the person other than the searched person.
RAJKUMAR GULAB BADGUJAR Vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19638 (SC) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
Taxability of ESOP-shares settlement.
Vernan Trust Vs PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 23
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19622 (SC)
-
Since the amendment is prospective in nature, therefore Revenue's contention that amendment in Sec.149 is retrospective as its procedural in nature is rejected.
BRAHM DATT Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19614 (SC)
-
The assessment framed after a detailed scrutiny, could not be re-opened beyond 4 years.
DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19582 (SC)
-
Assessee’s SLP challenging 'Forum-shopping' indulgence is dismissed by SC. However, SC sets aside imposition of cost.
N.R. PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD Vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19581 (SC)
-
Speculation Loss: Law on when an amendment can be said to be clarificatory/ retrospective explained. The amendment to the Explanation to s. 73 by the Finance (No 2) Act 2014 with effect from 1 April 2015 is not clarificatory or retrospective. Consequently, loss occurred to the assessee as a result of its activity of trading in shares (a loss arising from the business of speculation) is not capable of being set off against the profits which it had earned against the business of futures and options since the latter did not constitute profits and gains of a speculative business
Snowtex Investment Limited vs. PCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19512 (SC)
-
Entire law explained on (i) whether a litigant is bound by concessions of fact and law made by his Counsel/ Authorized representative during the hearing, (ii) tests to find out whether contract labourers are direct employees or not, (iii) meaning of "control and supervision", (iv) meaning of "master-servant" relationship & (v) when the findings in a judgement can be said to be "perverse" and such that no reasonable person could possibly arrive at
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd vs. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19501 (SC)
-
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)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.