-
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)
-
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
-
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
-
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)
-
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)
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HUF Law): U/s 29-A of the TN Amendment, only daughters of a coparcener who were not married at the time of commencement of the amendment of 1989 are is entitled to claim partition in the Hindu Joint Family Property. Married daughters are not coparceners and are not entitled to institute suit for partition and separate possession (Danamma @ Suman Surpur Vs. Amar 2018 (1) Scale 657 distinguished)
Mangammal @ Thulasi vs. T.B. Raju
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14980 (SC)
-
When will the Rip Van Winkleism stop and Union of India wake up to its duties and responsibilities to the justice delivery system? To make matters worse, in this appeal, the Union of India has engaged 10 lawyers, including an Additional Solicitor General and a Senior Advocate! In other words, the Union of India has created a huge financial liability by engaging so many lawyers for an appeal whose fate can be easily imagined on the basis of existing orders of dismissal in similar cases. Yet the Union of India is increasing its liability and asking the taxpayers to bear an avoidable financial burden for the misadventure
Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14937 (SC)
-
S. 40(a)(ia): The amendment to s. 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010 w.e.f 01.04.2010 to provide that all TDS made during the previous year can be deposited with the Government by the due date of filing the return of income should be interpreted liberally and equitably and applied retrospectively from the date when s. 40(a)(ia) was inserted i.e., with effect from the AY 2005-2006 so that an assessee should not suffer unintended and deleterious consequences beyond what the object and purpose of the provision mandates. The amendment is curative in nature and should be given retrospective operation as if the amended provision existed even at the time of its insertion
CIT. vs. Calcutta Export Company
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14892 (SC) · Section. 40(a)(ia)
-
S. 158BB Block Assessment: While it is a cardinal principle of law that in order to add any income in the block assessment, evidence of such income must be found in the course of the search u/s 132, any material or evidence found/collected in a survey u/s 133A which has been simultaneously made at the premises of a connected person can also be utilized while making the Block Assessment. The same would fall under the words “and such other materials or information as are available with the Assessing Officer and relatable to such evidence” occurring in s. 158 BB
CIT. vs. S. Ajit Kumar
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14891 (SC) · Section. 158BB
-
S. 10A: If deductions on freight, telecommunication and insurance attributable to the delivery of computer software u/s 10A of the IT Act are allowed only in Export Turnover but not from the Total Turnover then, it would give rise to inadvertent, unlawful, meaningless and illogical result which would cause grave injustice to the assessee which could have never been the intention of the legislature As the object of the formula is to arrive at the profit from export business, expenses excluded from export turnover have to be excluded from total turnover also. Otherwise, any other interpretation makes the formula unworkable and absurd
CIT. vs. HCL Technologies Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14888 (SC) · Section. 10A
-
Loan Waiver - Applicability of S. 28(iv) & 41(1): (a) S. 28(iv) does not apply if the receipts are in the nature of cash or money (b) S. 41(1) does not apply if the waiver of loan does not amount to cessation of trading liability i.e if the assessee has not claimed any deduction u/s 36 (1) (iii) of the IT Act qua the payment of interest in any previous year
CIT. vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14887 (SC) · Sections. 28(iv), 41(1)
-
S. 80-IA(4): Inland Container Depots (ICDs) are Inland Ports and income earned out of these Depots are eligible for deduction. However, the actual computation is to be made in accordance with the different Notifications issued by the Customs department with regard to different ICDs located at different places
CIT. vs. Container Corporation of India Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14886 (SC) · Section. 80-IA(4)
-
SC - Larger bench to decide whether Sec. 80HHC deduction entitlement to supporting manufacturer who receives export incentives in the form of duty draw back (DDB), Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) etc.
Carpet India, Panipat (Haryana) Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14871 (SC) · Section 80HHC
-
S. 80HHC: Law laid down in Baby Marine Exports 290 ITR 323 & Sushil Kumar Gupta 210 TM 251 (SC) is not correct. Question whether supporting manufacturer who receives export incentives in the form of duty draw back (DDB), Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) etc. is entitled for deduction u/s 80HHC is referred to the larger Bench
CIT vs. Carpet India
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14869 (SC) · Section 80HHC
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - 'Change of opinion' concept is not applicable where return had been accepted u/s 143(1) without scrutiny.
Laxmiraj Distributors Vs. Pr. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14861 (SC) · Section. 143(1)
-
S. 147/ 148: In order to constitute "change in opinion", the assessment earlier made must either expressly or by necessary implication have expressed an opinion on the subject matter of reopening. If the assessment order is non-speaking, cryptic or perfunctory in nature, it may be difficult to attribute to the AO any opinion on the questions that are raised in the proposed re-assessment proceedings. The reassessment cannot be struck down as being based on "change of opinion" if the assessment order does not address itself to the aspect sought to be examined in the re-assessment proceedings.
ITO. vs. TechSpan India Private Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14839 (SC) · Sections. 147, 148
-
S. 56: Interest accrued on account of deposit of share application money is not taxable income. Such interest is inextricably linked with the requirement to raise share capital and is thus adjustable towards the expenditures involved for the share issue. The fact that part of the share application money would normally have to be returned to unsuccessful applicants, and therefore, the entire share application money would not ultimately be appropriated by the Company, make no significant difference. The Interest earned from share application money has statutorily required to be kept in separate account and was being adjusted towards the cost of raising share capital
CIT. vs. Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14838 (SC) · Section. 56
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.