-
Article 5 India-UK DTAA: Entire law on what constitutes a "permanent establishment" in the context of the 'Formula One Grand Prix of India' event explained after extensive reference to case laws, OECD Model Convention and commentary by Philip Baker, Klaus Vogel and other experts
Formula One World Championship Limited vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12691 (SC)
-
S. 45/ 50(2): If an undertaking is sold as a running business with all assets and liabilities for a slump price, no part of the consideration can be attributed to depreciable assets and assessed as a short-term capital gain u/s 50(2). If the undertaking is held for more than three years, it constitutes a "long-term capital asset" and the gains are assessable as a long-term capital gain
CIT vs. Equinox Solution Pvt. Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12682 (SC) · Sections 45, 50(2)
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - HC had held that sale on 'going concern' basis is 'slump-sale' and not depreciable asset sale u/s 50(2).
CIT. vs. Equinox Solution Pvt. Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12641 (SC) · Section. 50(2)
-
Capital gains: An amount received from a wholly-owned subsidiary in consideration of transfer of shares of the WOS to a group of shareholders is not taxable as capital gains. The Department cannot subject a transaction under the Gift-tax Act and also levy tax under the Income-tax Act.
CIT. vs. Annamalaiar Mills
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12582 (SC)
-
S. 132: It is but natural that concealed income found at the time of search and survey has to be distributed among all the family members who were carrying on business. It is also a reasonable conclusion that the income had been earned over a period of time and should be spread over various years
CIT vs. Rekha Bai
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12550 (SC) · Section 132
-
S. 132/ 158BC, 158BD: The fact that the search was invalid because the warrant was in the name of a dead person does not make the s. 158BC/158BD proceedings invalid if the assessee participated in them. Information discovered in the search, if capable of generating the satisfaction for issuing a s. 158BD notice, cannot altogether become irrelevant because the search is invalid
Gunjan Girishbhai Mehta vs. DIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12549 (SC) · Sections 132, 158BC, 158BD
-
S. 132/ 158BC, 158BD: The fact that the search was invalid because the warrant was in the name of a dead person does not make the s. 158BC/158BD proceedings invalid if the assessee participated in them. Information discovered in the search, if capable of generating the satisfaction for issuing a s. 158BD notice, cannot altogether become irrelevant because the search is invalid
Gunjan Girishbhai Mehta vs. DIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12530 (SC) · Sections. 132, 158BC,158BD
-
S. 132: It is but natural that concealed income found at the time of search and survey has to be distributed among all the family members who were carrying on business. It is also a reasonable conclusion that the income had been earned over a period of time and should be spread over various years
CIT. vs. Rekha Bai
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12529 (SC) · Section. 132
-
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
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.