-
SC - Outstation visit of counsel is not a ground to seek adjournment.
Ram Siromani Tripathi & Ors Vs STATE OF U.P. & ORS
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16654 (SC)
-
An adjournment cannot be sought on the ground that Counsel is out of station. The appeal has to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Under no circumstances, application for restoration shall be entertained
Ram Siromani Tripathi vs. State of U.P.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16642 (SC)
-
SC - Assessee to comply with ‘PAN-Aadhaar linking’ requirement for return filing for AY 2019-20.
Shreya Sen & Anr Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16629 (SC)
-
SC - For the assessment year 2019-20 there is mandation of linkage of PAN with Aadhar. Permission to file ITR without complying with the condition of providing Aadhar Card registration number or Aadhar Card Enrollment number denied. Upheld the vires of section 139AA.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VERSUS SHREYA SEN AND ANR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16598 (SC) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75539&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
SC - HC order holding that one bogus donation would not establish that the activities of the trust are not genuine is erroneous and runs contrary to the plain language of Section 12AA(3).
Jagannath Gupta Family Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16583 (SC)
-
SC - Cancellation of Registration u/s 12AA - - bogus donation - In view of the serious allegations made against the respondent trust, it is a matter for consideration of the issue, after giving opportunity as pleaded by the respondent but the High Court has committed error in entertaining the appeal against the remand order passed by the appellate- authority, and in quashing the order of cancellation of registration.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA VERSUS JAGANNATH GUPTA FAMILY TRUST
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16577 (SC) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75516&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - HC had allowed sec.80-IB(10) deduction to assessee.
VRM (INDIA) LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16406 (SC) · Section 80-IB(10)
-
SC - PLI - Urges Govt. to relook into the provision contained in Sec. 80DD and explore the possibility of making suitable amendments regarding insurance payment for handicapped- dependents.
RAVI AGRAWAL Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16405 (SC)
-
S. 260A Condonation of delay of 1662 days: The High Court should not take a technical approach and refuse to condone the delay when appeals for earlier years with identical issues are already pending before it
Anil Kumar Nehru vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16304 (SC) · Section 260A
-
Professional Misconduct of CAs: A Chartered Accountant can be held guilty of professional misconduct even when he is acting as an individual in commercial dealings and is not acting as a CA nor discharging any function in relation to his practice as a Chartered Accountant. Under the CA Act, any action which brings disrepute to the profession or the Institute is misconduct whether or not related to professional work
Council of ICAI vs. Gurvinder Singh
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16153 (SC)
-
Interpretation of statutes: Effect of repeal of a statute u/s 6 of the General Clauses Act on pending proceedings explained in the context of the Gold Control Act and in view of law laid down in State of Punjab vs. Mohar Singh [1955] 1 SCR 893, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. C. Padma (2003) 7 SCC 713 etc
Sushila N. Rungta vs. TRO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16072 (SC)
-
Condonation of abnormal delay of 1371 days in removing office objections: High Court refused to condone delay and held that Dept must "set its own house in order by sacking and removing the delinquent and negligent officials or penalising them otherwise so as to subserve larger public interest". The Supreme Court reversed this holding High Court ought to have condoned the delay and not dismissed the appeal. Dept to pay costs of Rs. 1 lakh (from taxpayers' funds) for condonation of delay
CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16057 (SC)
-
Reverses HC; Assessee not 'local authority' post 2002 amendment; Denies exemption u/s 10(20)
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15923 (SC) · Section 10(20)
-
S. 10(20) Interpretation of statutes: Law on whether "functional test" as laid down in UOI vs. R.C. Jain, (1981) 2 SCC 308 is still good law explained in the context of whether the statutory functions conducted by a municipal committee enables it to qualify as a 'local authority'
ITO vs. Urban Improvement Trust
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15919 (SC) · Section 10(20)
-
We are shocked that the UOI through the CIT has taken the matter so casually. The petitioners have given a totally misleading statement before this Court. Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.10 lacs to be paid (by the exchequer)
Hapur Pilkhuwa Development Authority
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15670 (SC)
-
S. 80-IC: An assessee who avails of deduction for a period of 5 years @ 100% of profits and gains is entitled to deduction on 'substantial expansion' for remaining 5 Assessment Years @ 25% (or 30% where the assessee is a company) and not @ 100% (Mahabir Industries v. PCIT 256 TM 201 (SC) distinguished)
CIT. vs. Classic Binding Industries, (Supreme Court)
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15608 (SC) · Section. 80-IC
-
Income-tax dues, being in the nature of Crown debts, do not take precedence even over secured creditors, who are private persons. Given s. 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Code will override anything inconsistent contained in any other enactment, including the Income-tax Act
PCIT. vs. Monnet Ispat And Energy Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15607 (SC)
-
Entire law on interpretation of statues relating to 'purposive interpretation', 'strict interpretation', 'literal interpretation', etc explained. Difference in interpretation of statutes vs. exemption notifications explained. Q whether there is doubt or ambiguity in interpretation of a statute or notification benefit of doubt should go to the taxpayer or to the revenue explained. Law on Doctrine of substantial compliance and “intended use” also explained
Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15455 (SC)
-
S. 220(6): CBDT's OMs dated 29.02.2016 & 31.07.2017 by which AO's have been directed to grant stay of disputed demand on payment of 20%/ 15% does not fetter the power of the AO & CIT to grant stay on payment of amounts lesser than 15%/ 20%. The AO/ CIT have to deal with the prima facie merits and give reasons for rejection of the stay application
PCIT vs. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15424 (SC) · Section. 220(6)
-
SC - Administrative Circular of the CBDT will not operate as a 'fetter' on the Commissioner, since it is a quasi judicial authority to grant lesser deposit relief.
LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Pr. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15413 (SC)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.