-
SC - No exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) to Visvesvaraya Technological University as it doesn’t satisfy the condition of being an institution ‘wholly or substantially financed by the Govt.’
Visvesvaraya Technological University vs. ACIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10141 (SC) · Section 10(23C)
-
SC - SLP dismissed - Wheeling charges neither neither qualify as rent (u/s 194I) nor as FTS (u/s 194J) and thus no TDS required to be withheld.
CIT(TDS) vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10140 (SC)
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - “Wheeling charges” was not taxable as FTS u/s 194J.
CIT-TDS. vs. Delhi Transco Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10125 (SC) · Section. 194J
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - Surrender of Floor Area Ratio relating to land in favour of developer for construction of flats is transfer u/s 2(47).
Dinesh Rankha vs. CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10124 (SC)
-
Important law on concept of "ancestral property" under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the formation of a HUF by the surviving members of the deceased explained
Uttam vs. Saubhag Singh
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10123 (SC)
-
S. 9(1)(vii)/ 40(a)(ia)/ 194J: “Technical services” & “Managerial and Consultancy service” denotes services that cater to special & exclusive needs of the consumer/user. A "facility", even if termed as a service, which is available to all users, does not come within the ambit of “technical services” in Explanation 2 of s. 9(1)(vii)
CIT vs. Kotak Securities Ltd
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10069 (SC) · Sections 9(1)(vii), 40(a)(ia), 194J
-
SC - 3.5% of FOB value received as service charge from export houses is available for sec. 80HHC deduction for AY 1994-95.
Southern Sea Foods vs. JCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10055 (SC) · Section. 80HHC
-
SC - No TDS u/s 194J on transaction charges paid by stock exchange members to BSE as it does not qualify as 'fees for technical services'.
Kotak Securities Ltd. vs. CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10053 (SC)
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - HC was justified in quashing ITAT order which had held that no addition could be made in the block assessment proceedings in case of assessees for want of undisclosed income.
Shibu Soren vs. CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10019 (SC)
-
SC - Modifies Kerala HC order with respect to assessee’s capital gains exemption claim u/s 54F.
XAVIER J PULIKKAL Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10005 (SC) · Section. 54F
-
SC - Various subsidies (transport, power, interest and insurance) received qualify for incentive deduction u/s 80IB and 80IC for AY 2004-05.
CIT. vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10004 (SC) · Section. 80IB/IC
-
S. 80-IB(4): Subsidies (such as transport subsidy, Interest subsidy and power subsidy) paid to the assessee with the object of reducing the cost of production constitutes "profits derived from the business of the industrial undertaking" and is eligible for deduction u/s 80-IB. Liberty India 317 ITR 218 (SC) is distinguishable on facts
CIT. vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10003 (SC) · Section. 80-IB(4)
-
SC - Proceeds generated from scrap sales should not be included in ‘total turnover’ for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 80HHC.
JAGRAON EXPORTS vs. CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9987 (SC) · Section. 80HHC
-
SC - Where there is no assessment order passed, there cannot be a notice for re-assessment inasmuch as the question of re-assessment arises only when there is an assessment in the first instance.
Standard Chartered Finance Ltd. vs. CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9980 (SC)
-
SC - Non-disposal of registration application within 6 months timeline as stipulated u/s 12AA(2) shall result in “deemed grant of registration".
CIT. vs. Society for the Promotion of Education Adventure Sport & Conservation of Environment
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9959 (SC) · Section. 12AA
-
S. 12AA: Non disposal of an application for registration before the expiry of six months as provided u/s 12AA (2) results in deemed grant of registration
CIT vs. Society For The Promotion Of Education, Adventure Sport & Conservation Of Environment
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9958 (SC) · Section 12AA
-
Law on prospective vs. retrospective operation of legislation explained. The Hindu Succession (Amendment Act), 2005 which came into effect on 09.09.2015 and by which daughters in a joint Hindu family, governed by Mitakshara law, were granted statutory right in the coparcenary property (being property not partitioned or alienated) of their fathers applies only if both the father and the daughter are alive on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act
Prakash vs. Phulvati
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9933 (SC)
-
Daughter have equal rights in Parents property prospectively: SC
Prakash & Ors vs. Phulavati & Ors
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9882 (SC)
-
SC - Doctrine of lifting the veil can be invoked if the public interest so requires or if there is allegation of violation of law by using the device of a corporate entity.
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs. Gotan Lime Stone Khanji Udyog Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9832 (SC)
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - HC had held that payment of consultancy fees to Singaporean company for forex derivative transaction was FTS.
CIT vs. Andaman Sea Food Pvt. Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9810 (SC)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.