-
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
-
Law on whether amount received by an employee from redemption of Stock Appreciation Rights (SARs) can be assessed as "perquisite" u/s 17(2) (iii) or as "profits of business" u/s 28 (iv) or as "capital gains" (despite no "cost of acquisition") u/s 45 explained. CBDT Circular No. 710 dated 24.07.1995 considered
ACIT. vs. Bharat V. Patel
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14837 (SC)
-
Diversion of income by overriding title: Only income that has actually accrued to the assessee is taxable. What income has really occurred to be decided, not by reference to physical receipt of income, but by the receipt of income in reality. The fact that there is no written agreement to show that the assessee was acting as a broker is not relevant. The relationship of the assessee vis-a-vis others can be inferred from the conduct of the parties
DCIT. vs. T. Jayachandran
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14836 (SC)
-
Bifurcation of lease rentals into interest and loan recovery: An assessee can only be taxed on "real income". The bifurcation of lease rental is not an artificial calculation. Lease equalization is an essential step in the accounting process to ensure that real income from the transaction in the form of revenue receipts only is captured for the purposes of income tax. The Guidance Note issued by the ICAI carries great weight. The method of accounting prescribed in such a Guidance Note, in order to compute real income and offering the same for taxation, cannot be disregarded by the AO unless such action falls within the scope and ambit of S. 145(3) of the IT Act
CIT. vs. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14835 (SC)
-
S. 158BD Block Assessment: Although s. 158BD does not speak of ‘recording of reasons’ as postulated in s. 148, but since proceedings u/s 158BD may have monetary implications, such satisfaction must reveal mental and dispassionate thought process of the AO in arriving at a conclusion and must contain reasons which should be the basis of initiating the proceedings u/s 158BD. Notice u/s 158BC issued on the same date to the searched person and the other person is not valid as no reasonable or prudent man can come to the satisfaction that any undisclosed income belongs to the other person unless the seized books of accounts etc are verified. The AO is empowered to issue a second notice u/s 158BD to the other person
Tapan Kumar Dutta vs. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14834 (SC) · Section. 158BD
-
S. 80-O: Law on meaning of "technical assistance" and when services can be said to have made available "information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific knowledge, experience or skill" explained
B. L. Passi vs. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14833 (SC) · Section. 80-O
-
It is a fundamental rule of law of taxation that, unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice. A taxing Statute should not be interpreted in such a manner that its effect will be to cast a burden twice over for the payment of tax on the taxpayer unless the language of the Statute is so compelling that the court has no alternative than to accept it. In a case of reasonable doubt, the construction most beneficial to the taxpayer is to be adopted
Mahaveer Kumar Jain vs. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14809 (SC)
-
S. 292-B: A s. 148 notice issued in the name of a company which does not exist upon its conversion into a LLP is valid if there is material to show that the issue in the name of the company was a clerical mistake. The object and purpose behind s. 292-B is to ensure that technical pleas on the ground of mistake, defect or omission should not invalidate the assessment proceedings, when no confusion or prejudice is caused due to non-observance of technical formalities
Skylight Hospitality LLP vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14716 (SC) · Section. 292-B
-
S. 194-H/201 TDS Liability: Law on whether relationship is that of "principal and agent" and whether payment is of the nature of "commission" explained. Non-compliance of s. 194H attracts the rigor of s. 201 which provides for consequences of failure to deduct or pay the tax. Jagran Prakashan vs. DCIT 345 ITR 288 (All) distinguished on facts
The Director, Prasar Bharati vs. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14671 (SC) · Sections. 194-H, 201
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.