-
SC - Govt. will abide by the CBDT circular dated September 2 & subsequent Press Release dated September 24 on MAT.
Castleton Investment Ltd vs. DIR of IT International Taxation
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9053 (SC)
-
SC - UPSC to reconsider CIT’s promotion claim to the post of CCIT. promotion can’t be denied on the basis of un-communicated ACRs.
Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal vs. Chairman, U.P.S.C. & Ors.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9028 (SC)
-
SC - Assessee can exercise option of income accumulation in its return of income. A charitable trust (for relevant AY 1994-95) could accumulate only upto 25% of total receipts.
CIT. vs. G.R. Govindarajulu & Sons
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8963 (SC)
-
SC - Entire law on the taxation of deceased persons and their estate explained in the context of the Income-tax Act and the Central Excise Act
Shabina Abraham & Ors vs. Collector of Central Excise
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8955 (SC)
-
SC - Important principles relating to valuation of property subject to the Land Ceiling Act explained in the context of the Wealth-tax Act
Sri S. N. Wadiyar (Dead) Through LR vs. CWT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8954 (SC)
-
SC - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, as amended, applies to the cases where though an order has been passed directing refund, implementation of the order is pending.
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE V/s. M/S. DALMIA CEMENTS (BHARAT) LTD.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8892 (SC) · Section. 11B
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - HC had quashed sec 271(1)(c) penalty as assessee’s wrong deduction claim was based on legal advice rendered by professionally qualified persons.
CIT vs. Rave Entertainment Pvt Ltd
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8879 (SC) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
SC - Mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused is not sufficient to establish an offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Proof of demand of illegal gratification is essential. Its absence is fatal to the complaint
P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. Dist. Inspector of Police
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8836 (SC)
-
SC - The "functional" test has to be applied to determine whether an asset is "plant". Even a pond designed for rearing prawns can be "plant"
ACIT vs. Victory Aqua Farm Ltd
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8835 (SC) · Section 32
-
SC - ‘Natural pond’ which as per the assessee is specially designed for rearing prawns would be treated as ‘Plant’ within Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Victory Aqua Farm Ltd. Vs. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8833 (SC)
-
SC - High Courts being Courts of Record under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the power of review would in fact inhere in them.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Meghalaya Steels Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8813 (SC)
-
HC - Even during the period when the facility of payment of excise duty in instalments on fortnightly basis is not available and remains suspended, the only obligation for the assessee is to pay the duty on each clearance and not on deferred basis and it can be paid either through account current or Cenvat Credit.
M/s Jayaswal Neco Ltd. V/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8812 (SC)
-
Law Commission and the Bar Council of India should consider whether Advocates should be tested for fitness and competence to argue matters
Shiv Kumar Yadav
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8806 (SC)
-
SC - Ponds designed for breeding of prawns are plant for depreciation purposes
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Victory Aqua Farm Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8781 (SC) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=61861&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - HC had held that benefit u/s 80IB(10) available inspite of non- fulfilment commercial establishments area limit inserted vide clause (d) to Sec 80-IB(10) w.e.f April 1, 2005.
CIT. vs. Happy Home Enterprises
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8750 (SC) · Section. 80IB(10)
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - HC had quashed reassessment as Sec 148 notice invoking Sec 149(1)(c) was barred by limitation absent foreign asset.
ITO and Ors.vs. Deccan Digital Networks Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8717 (SC)
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - HC had held that the assessee is required to disclose full and true material facts and need not explain or interpret the law. Legal inference has to be drawn by the Assessing Officer from the facts disclosed by the assessee
CIT. vs. Cray Research India Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8714 (SC)
-
SC - The client is not bound by a statement or admission which he or his lawyer was not authorised to make. The Lawyer generally has no implied or apparent authority to make an admission or statement which would directly surrender or conclude the substantial legal rights of the client unless such an admission or statement is clearly a proper step in accomplishing the purpose for which the lawyer was employed The Supreme Court had to inter alia consider the following issues
Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society Vs. Balwan Singh
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8669 (SC)
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - HC had quashed reassessment notice as satisfaction of Joint Commissioner was recorded mechanically.
CIT. Vs. Goyanka Lime and Chemicals Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8608 (SC)
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - Clearances from statutory authorities and receipt of amount through normal banking channels insufficient, ‘’source’ creditworthiness must under section 68.
Velocient Technologies Ltd. vs. CIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8573 (SC)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.