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

891 rulings

  1. Supreme Court · 17 Aug 2017
    S. 260A: Right of appeal is not a matter of procedure. It is a substantive right. This right gets vested in the litigants at the commencement of the lis and such a vested right cannot be taken away or cannot be impaired or imperilled or made more stringent or onerous by any subsequent legislation unless the subsequent legislation said so either expressly or by necessary intendment. An intention to interfere with or impair or imperil a vested right cannot be presumed unless such intention be clearly manifested by express words or by necessary implication.

    K Raveendranathan Nair vs. CIT

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13375 (SC) · Section. 260A

  2. Supreme Court · 16 Aug 2017
    S. 80P Test of Mutuality: An assessee cannot be treated as a co-operative society meant only for its members and providing credit facilities to its members if it has carved out a category called ‘nominal members’. These are those members who are making deposits with the assessee for the purpose of obtaining loans, etc. and, in fact, they are not members in the real sense. Most of the business of the assessee was with this category of persons who have been giving deposits which are kept in Fixed Deposits with a motive to earn maximum returns. A portion of these deposits is utilised to advance gold loans, etc. to the members of the first category. It is found that the depositors and borrowers are quite distinct. In reality, such activity of the appellant is that of finance business and cannot be termed as co-operative society

    The Citizens Cooperative Society Ltd. vs. ACIT

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13372 (SC) · Section. 80P

  3. Supreme Court · 14 Aug 2017
    SC - In all cases where assessee is in appeal in the HC u/s. 260A, if the date of assessment is prior to March 06, 2003, Sec. 52A of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 shall not apply and the court fee shall be payable as per provisions prevailing as on the date of such assessment order.

    K. Raveendranathan Nair vs. CIT

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13362 (SC)

  4. Supreme Court · 10 Aug 2017
    SC - The co-operative society (providing credit facilities beyond members) cannot be treated as a co-operative society meant only for its members and providing credit facilities to its members. Such a society cannot claim the benefit of Section 80P of the Act

    The Citizen Co-Operative Society vs. ACIT

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13341 (SC) · Section. 80P

  5. Supreme Court · 04 Aug 2017
    S. 80-IA: Difference between 'manufacturing' and 'production' explained. The word ‘production’ has a wider connotation in comparison to ‘manufacture’. Any activity which brings a commercially new product into existence constitutes production. The process of bottling of LPG renders it capable of being marketed as a domestic kitchen fuel and, thereby, makes it a viable commercial product

    CIT. vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13303 (SC) · Section. 80-IA

  6. Supreme Court · 10 Jun 2017
    SC - As per Technical Collaboration Agreement, technical fees for plant set-up as capital expenditure.

    Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. Vs. CIT

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13001 (SC)

  7. Supreme Court · 10 Jun 2017
    Technical know-how: Entire law explained on whether expenditure incurred under a Technical Collaboration Agreement for setting up of new plant for the first time to manufacture cars constitutes capital or revenue expenditure

    Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. vs. CIT

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13000 (SC)

  8. Supreme Court · 10 Jun 2017
    S. 139AA (inserted by the Finance Act 2017) which mandates quoting of Aadhaar number with the PAN is constitutionally valid under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). The proviso to s. 139AA(2) (which deems the PAN void ab initio if the Aadhaar number is not quoted) is also valid. However, as the challenge under Article 21 is pending before the Constitution Bench, a partial stay is granted. Those who are already enrolled under the Aadhaar scheme should comply with s. 139AA (2). Those who are not enrolled need not do so for the time being and their PAN will not be treated as invalid. The said proviso to s. 139AA(2) cannot be read retrospectively as it takes away vested rights. It will only have prospective effect

    Binoy Visam vs. UOI

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12999 (SC) · Section. 139AA

  9. Supreme Court · 09 Jun 2017
    SC - Sec. 139AA constitutionality valid. Enforces Sec. 139AA for those assessees who possess an Aadhaar card but grants partial relief to non-Aadhaar holders by staying the operation of the provision for them.

    Binoy Viswam Vs. Union Of India & Ors.

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12996 (SC) · Section. 139AA

  10. Supreme Court · 22 May 2017
    Supreme Court issues strictures against the income-tax department stating that it is "extremely unhappy" with the delay of 3381 days in refiling the SLP and demands that "The concerned authorities need to wake up"

    CIT. vs. Krishan K. Aggarwal

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12880 (SC)

  11. Supreme Court · 15 May 2017
    SC - Rental income from sub-licensing of shopping centre is taxable as ‘house property’ income and not business income.

    Raj Dadarkar & Associates vs. ACIT

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12832 (SC)

  12. Supreme Court · 15 May 2017
    SC - Addition based on seized documents - It is but natural that if any concealed income has been found at the time of search and survey, it has to be distributed among all the family members who were carrying on business.

    Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Rekha Bai

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12821 (SC) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68853&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  13. Supreme Court · 13 May 2017
    SC - Income earned from the shopping center - Having regard to the terms and conditions on which the leasehold rights were taken by the assessee in auction, constructed the market area thereupon and gave the same to various persons on sub-licensing basis, the assessee would be treated as deemed owner of these premises in terms of Section 27(iiib).

    RAJ DADARKAR & ASSOCIATES Versus ACIT – CC-46

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12815 (SC) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69111&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  14. Supreme Court · 11 May 2017
    Severe strictures passed against the High Court for "inconsistent decision-making" and passing orders which are "palpably illegal, faulty and contrary to the basic principles of law" and by ignoring "large number of binding decisions of the Supreme Court" and giving "impermissible benefit to accused". Law on condonation of delay explained. CBI directed to implement mechanism to ensure that all appeals are filed in time

    State Of Jharkhand vs. Lalu Prasad Yadav

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12809 (SC)

  15. Supreme Court · 10 May 2017
    SC - Section 14A of the Act would apply to dividend income on which tax is payable under Section 115-O.

    GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED Versus DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX & ANR.

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12795 (SC) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69079&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  16. Supreme Court · 08 May 2017
    SC - Disallowance u/s 14A is applicable to dividend income on which tax is payable u/s. 115-O.

    GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURINGCOMPANY LIMITED Vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX& ANR.

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12787 (SC) · Section 14A

  17. Supreme Court · 04 May 2017
    S. 40(a)(ia): S. 194C read with s. 200 are mandatory provisions. The disallowance stipulated in s. 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct TDS u/s 194C is one of the consequences for the default. Accordingly, though there is a difference between “paid” and “payable”, s. 40(a)(ia) covers not only those cases where the amount is payable but also when it is paid. The contrary interpretation that s. 40(a)(ia) applies only to cases where amounts are “payable” will result in defaulters going scot free

    Palam Gas Service vs. CIT

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12765 (SC) · Sections 40(a)(ia), 194C

  18. Supreme Court · 04 May 2017
    SC - Provisions of Section 40 (a) (ia) of the Act were applicable not only to the amount which were shown as outstanding on the closing of the relevant previous year, but to the entire expenditure which became liable for payment at any point of time during the year under consideration and which was also paid before the closing of the year as rightly held by the authorities below.

    Palam Gas Service Vs. CIT

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12757 (SC) · Section 40(a) (ia)

  19. Supreme Court · 02 May 2017
    SC - The issue on allowability of preliminary expenses as revenue expenditure was debatable in view of divergent HC views but issue decided by jurisdictional HC is non-debatable to make 143(1)(a) adjustment.

    DCIT. Vs. Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd.

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12740 (SC) · Section. 143(1)(a)

  20. Supreme Court · 28 Apr 2017
    S. 143(1)(a): Even though there was a raging controversy amongst the High Courts on whether expenditure for raising capital is capital or revenue in nature, the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court is binding on the assessee and any view contrary thereto is a "prima facie" mistake that requires adjustment

    CIT vs. Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12739 (SC) · Section 143(1)(a)

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.