-
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)
-
HC - Where no agreement between two Jurisdictional Commissioners as required u/s 127 for transfer of case was shown by revenue, impugned order of transfer could not be upheld.
Noorul Islam Educational Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax-I
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11689 (SC) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66626&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
SC - No interest u/s 234B/C can be levied on employee for employer's TDS default.
Ian Peter Morris vs. ACIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11679 (SC) · Section. 234B/C
-
SC - Writ Dismissed - Taxpayer’s challenge to IDS-2 scheme (Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojna, 2016) dismissed.
Siddharth Mehta Vs. Union Of India And Anr.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11678 (SC)
-
SC - Though Section 10A, as amended, is a provision for deduction, the stage of deduction would be while computing the gross total income of the eligible undertaking under Chapter IV of the Act and not at the stage of computation of the total income under Chapter VI.
C.I.T. & Another Versus M/s Yokogawa India Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11672 (SC) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=67973&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
SC - Sec. 10A/10B, after amendment by Finance Act, 2000 w.e.f. April 1, 2001, is a 'deduction provision' and not an 'exemption provision' even though it appears in Chapter III. Therefore, stage of deduction is while computing gross total income of eligible undertaking under Chapter IV of the Income-tax Act and not at the stage of computation of total income under Chapter VI.
Yokogawa India Ltd. Vs. C.I.T. & Anr.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11671 (SC) · Sections. 10A/10B
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - HC had held that Sec. 80IB(10) deduction to builder/developer is allowed in respect of real estate developments that were complete on a stand-alone basis even though forming part of a housing project consisting of other housing schemes that were not eligible for deduction.
Pr. CIT. Vs. OMAXE BUILDHOME PVT LTD.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11669 (SC)
-
SC - Writ allowed against re-assessment notice. Without making any observations on merits, judgments dismissing writ against reassessment remitted to the respective HCs to decide the writ petitions on merits.
Jeans Knit Private Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11668 (SC)
-
SC - Subvention for subsidiary’s losses from holding company is capital in nature.
Siemens Public Communication Networks Ltd
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11636 (SC)
-
S. 4: Law laid down in Sahney Steel 228 ITR 253 (SC) and Ponni Sugars 306 ITR 392 (SC) regarding the taxability of subsidies as a revenue receipt does not apply to voluntary subsidies (subvention) paid by a holding company to its loss making subsidiary. The said subsidy is to protect the capital investment of the holding company and is a capital receipt in the hands of the recipient
Siemens Public Communications Network Ltd vs. CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11628 (SC) · Section 4
-
SC - Ruler is entitled u/s 10(19A) to claim exemption for the whole of his residential palace and such exemption would not confine only to that portion of the palace which is in his actual occupation as Legislature did not intend to tax portion of the “palace” by splitting it in parts.
Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota Thr. Maharao Brij Raj Singh, Kota Versus Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajasthan-II, Jaipur
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11600 (SC) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66910&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
SC - Exemption u/s 10(19A) available to erstwhile Ruler on rental income from letting out the portion of palace to the defence-ministry.
Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11593 (SC) · Section. 10(19A)
-
S. 10(19A): Though principles of res judicata do not apply, the Dept should not endlessly pursue matters which have attained finality in earlier years. Principles of interpretation of statutes explained. Interplay between s. 10(19A), s. 23 of the Income-tax Act & s. 5(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act explained
Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota vs. CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11589 (SC) · Section 10(19A)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.