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

877 rulings

  1. Supreme Court · 20 Dec 2018
    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

  2. Supreme Court · 24 Nov 2018
    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)

  3. Supreme Court · 06 Nov 2018
    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)

  4. Supreme Court · 02 Nov 2018
    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)

  5. Supreme Court · 13 Oct 2018
    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)

  6. Supreme Court · 15 Oct 2018
    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)

  7. Supreme Court · 01 Sep 2018
    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)

  8. Supreme Court · 23 Aug 2018
    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

  9. Supreme Court · 23 Aug 2018
    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)

  10. Supreme Court · 31 Jul 2018
    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)

  11. Supreme Court · 28 Jul 2018
    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)

  12. Supreme Court · 25 Jul 2018
    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)

  13. Supreme Court · 18 Jul 2018
    ITAT Appointment Rules: Persons selected as Member of the ITAT will continue till the age of 62 years and the person holding the post of President, shall continue till the age of 65 years

    Kudrat Sandhu vs. UOI

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15389 (SC)

  14. Supreme Court · 10 Jul 2018
    S. 194-I TDS: Amounts paid as part of the lease premium or biannual or annual payments for a limited/specific period towards acquisition of lease hold rights are not subject to TDS, being capital payments. Amounts constituting annual lease rent, expressed in terms of percentage (e.g. 1%) of the total premium for the duration of the lease, are rent and subject to TDS

    New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) vs. ACIT

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15368 (SC) · Section. 194-I

  15. Supreme Court · 10 Jul 2018
    S. 194A TDS: Meaning of the expression "corporation" explained. Difference between "established by an Act" and "established under an Act" explained. Important principles of interpretation of fiscal statutes explained. Though NOIDA is not a "local authority", it is a "corporation established by the Act" and so payments to it are not liable to TDS u/s 194A

    CIT (TDS) vs. Canara Bank

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15366 (SC) · Section. 194A

  16. Supreme Court · 03 Jul 2018
    S. 10(20): Law on whether an industrial township referred to in proviso to Article 243Q is equivalent to a "municipality" and a "local authority" explained. Law on interpretation of statutes as to the scope of an "Explanation" and "Proviso" explained. There is no concept of "equity" or "presumption" or "intendment" in a taxing statute. Only the language has to be seen

    New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) vs. CCIT

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15302 (SC) · Section. 10(20)

  17. Supreme Court · 02 Jul 2018
    SC - No exemption u/s. 10(20) to NOIDA constituted under UP Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 since it is not ‘local authority’.

    New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Vs. CCIT

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15296 (SC) · Section. 10(20)

  18. Supreme Court · 30 Jun 2018
    S. 69 Bogus Purchases: Purchases cannot be treated as Bogus if (a) they are duly supported by bills, (b) all payments are made by account payee cheques, (c) the supplier has confirmed the transactions, (d) there is no evidence to show that the purchase consideration has come back to the assessee in cash, (e) the sales out of purchases have been accepted & (f) the supplier has accounted for the purchases made by the assessee and paid taxes thereon

    PCIT. Vs. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15292 (SC) · Section. 69

  19. Supreme Court · 06 Jun 2018
    S. 143(3)/ 292C: If the AO wants to rely upon documents found with third parties, the presumption u/s 292C against the assessee is not available. As per the principles of natural justice, the AO has to provide the evidence to the assessee & grant opportunity of cross-examination. Secondary evidences cannot be relied on as if neither the person who prepared the documents nor the witnesses are produced. The violation of natural justice renders the assessment void. The Dept cannot be given a second chance (All judgements considered)

    CIT. Vs. Sunita Dhadda

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15102 (SC) · Sections. 143(3), 292C

  20. Supreme Court · 19 May 2018
    S. 80-IC: The fact that the assessee has earlier availed deduction u/s 80-IA & 80-IB is of no concern because deduction u/s 80-IC is available from the "initial year" i.e. the year of completion of substantial expansion. The inclusion of period for the deduction availed u/s 80-IA & 80-IB, for the purpose of counting ten years, is provided in sub-section (6) of s. 80-IC and it is limited to those industrial undertakings or enterprises which are set-up in the North-Eastern Region

    Mahabir Industries vs. PCIT

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14988 (SC) · Section. 80-IC

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.