-
SC - Premium" collected by the appellant-Company on its subscribed share capital cannot be treated “capital employed in the business of the Company", therefore benefit of deduction u/s 35D not allowed.
M/s Berger Paints India Ltd. Versus C.I.T., Delhi
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12495 (SC) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68778&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - HC had held that invalid search warrant u/s 132 is not a ground to invalidate block assessment u/s. 158BD on ‘other person’.
Gunjan Girishbhai Mehta vs. Director Of Investigation & Ors.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12494 (SC) · Section. 132, 158BD
-
S. 35D: Premium collected by a company on subscribed share capital is not “capital employed in the business of the Company" within the meaning of s. 35D so as to enable the claim of deduction of the said amount as prescribed u/s 35D
Berger Paints India Ltd vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12490 (SC) · Section 35D
-
SC - Share premium is not part of ''capital employed'' for the purpose of computing Sec. 35D deduction.
Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12482 (SC) · Section. 35D
-
S. 147: Entire law on reopening of assessments pursuant to audit objections explained in the context of the corresponding provisions of the Bihar Finance Act. If the AO disagrees with the information/ objection of the audit party and is not personally satisfied that income has escaped assessment but still reopens the assessment on the direction issued by the audit party, the reassessment proceedings are without jurisdiction
Larsen & Toubro Ltd vs. State of Jharkhand
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12430 (SC) · Section 147
-
S. 32: Title to immovable property cannot pass when its value is more than Rs.100/- unless it is executed on a proper stamp paper and is also duly registered with the sub-Registrar. Accordingly, a lessee cannot be said to be the "owner" for purposes of claiming depreciation. Under Explanation 1 to s. 32, the lessee is entitled to depreciation on the cost of construction incurred by him but not on the cost incurred by the owner and reimbursed by the lessee
Mother Hospital Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12429 (SC) · Section 32
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - HC had held that no rectification u/s 154 for matters decided in appeal.
Indus Finance Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12314 (SC)
-
S. 9(1)(vii)/ Article 12: In order to constitute “technical services”, services catering to the special needs of the person using them must be rendered. The provision of a common facility is not “technical services”. Amount paid towards reimbursement of a common technical computer facility is not “fees for technical services”. Amount received by way of reimbursement of expenses does not have the character of income
DIT vs. A. P. Moller Maersk AS
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12303 (SC) · Section 9(1)(vii)
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - HC had held that Department cannot initiate Sec 201 proceedings for a period more than four years.
ACIT(TDS) vs. Tata Teleservices Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12101 (SC)
-
S. 10(37) Capital Gains: Meaning of "compulsory acquisition" under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 explained. The fact that the assessee entered into a settlement with the Collector regarding the compensation amount does not mean that the acquisition was not "compulsory" if the prescribed procedure was followed. Info Park Kerala vs. ACIT (2008) 4 KLT 782 overruled
Balakrishnan vs. UOI
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12023 (SC) · Section 10(37)
-
S. 34 of the Evidence Act: Entries in loose papers/ sheets are irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence. Such loose papers are not “books of account” and the entries therein are not sufficient to charge a person with liability. Even if books of account are regularly kept in the ordinary course of business, the entries therein shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. It is incumbent upon the person relying upon those entries to prove that they are in accordance with facts
Common Cause vs. UOI
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11976 (SC) · Section 34
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - HC had held that sec penalty u/s 271D applicable for accepting cash-loan from director in violation of sec. 269SS.
Chandra Cement Ltd. vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11883 (SC) · Section. 271D
-
S. 271(1)(c): Omission by the AO to explicitly specify in the penalty notice as to whether penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation
CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11870 (SC) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
S. 2(22)(2) Deemed Dividend: The argument that as the shares are issued in the name of the Karta, the HUF is not the “registered shareholder” and so s. 2(22)(e) will not apply to loans paid to the HUF is not correct because in the annual returns filed with the ROC, the HUF is shown as the registered and beneficial shareholder. In any case, the HUF is the beneficial shareholder. Even if it is assumed that the Karta is the registered shareholder and not the HUF, as per Explanation 3 to s. 2(22), any payment to a concern (i.e. the HUF) in which the shareholder (i.e. the Karta) has a substantial interest is also covered
Gopal And Sons (HUF) vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11825 (SC) · Section 2(22)(2)
-
SC - Not correct to hold that since the company (in which assessee-HUF beneficially held more than 10% share-capital) had issued shares in the name of karta and not in HUF’s name, HUF-assessee was neither the beneficial nor the registered shareholder, hence Sec 2(22)(e) cannot be made applicable.
Gopal & Sons Vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11818 (SC)
-
SC - SP Dismissed - HC had held that Sec. 263 can be invoked in case of “no enquiry” and not in case of inadequate inquiry
CIT. Vs. Nirav Modi
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11770 (SC) · Section. 263
-
S. 192/ 234B: Where receipt is by way of salary, TDS deductions u/s 192 has to be made. No question of payment of advance tax can arise in cases of receipt by way of 'salary'. Consequently, S. 234B & 234C which levy interest for deferment of advance tax have no application
Ian Peter Morris vs. ACIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11712 (SC) · Sections 192, 234B
-
S. 10A/ 10B: Though s. 10A/ 10B were amended by FA 2000 w.e.f. 01.04.2001 to change "exemption" to "deduction", the "deduction" contemplated therein is qua the eligible undertaking of an assessee standing on its own and without reference to the other eligible or non-eligible units or undertakings of the assessee. The benefit of deduction is given by the Act to the individual undertaking and resultantly flows to the assessee. The deduction of the profits and gains of the business of an eligible undertaking has to be made independently and before giving effect to the provisions for set off and carry forward contained in s. 70, 72 and 74. The deductions u/s 10A/10B are prior to the commencement of the exercise to be undertaken under Chapter VI of the Act for arriving at the total income of the assessee from the gross total income
CIT vs. Yokogawa India Limited
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11705 (SC) · Sections 10A, 10B
-
S. 147/ 148: A Writ Petition to challenge the issue of a reopening notice u/s 148 is maintainable as per the law laid down in Calcutta Discount 41 ITR 191 (SC). The law laid down in Chhabil Dass Agarwal 357 ITR 357 (SC) deals with the maintainability of a Writ to challenge the reassessment order and does not apply to a challenge to the reassessment notice
Jeans Knit Private Limited vs. DCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11704 (SC) · Sections 147, 148
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - HC had held that AAR rejecting application on the ground that issues were pending adjudication before AO and Sec. 143(2) notices were already issued, was not valid.
CIT. Vs. Hyosung Corporation & Anr.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11699 (SC) · Section. 143(2)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.