-
SC - Value of let out portion of building (to subsidiary Co. for carrying out job work for assessee) was included in net wealth of assessee-company. Lifting of corporate veil was justified in this case.
Kapri International (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, New Delhi
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6467 (SC) · http://www.taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=60614&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
SC - Where object clause of the company included holding of the two properties at Madras and earning income from letting of the properties then property rent would be treated as a business income
Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs CIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6433 (SC)
-
SC - Where letting out of property was the main objective of the company, rental income would be chargeable under the head 'Business'. It cannot be treated as 'income from the house property'
M/s Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd Versus The Commissioner Of Income Tax
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6422 (SC) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=60998&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - 5% restriction on commercial area introduced u/s 80IB from April 2005 not clarificatory and shall apply prospectively
CIT. vs. Veena Developers
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6415 (SC)
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - HC had held that demerger scheme of Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd had bonafide commercial purpose
Department of Income Tax vs. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd & Anr.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6187 (SC)
-
SC - SLP dismissed - HC had held assessee in default for not depositing TDS into Government account.
Kingfisher Airlines Limited vs. CIT & Anr & etc
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6137 (SC)
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - HC had held that expenditure incurred for upgrading existing product in the telecommunication industry is revenue in nature.
Cit vs Tejas Networks India ltd
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6136 (SC)
-
SC - Where there are losses in the export business but the profits in respect of business carried out within India are more than the export losses then deductions under erstwhile Sec 80HHC(3) will not be available. It has to be satisfied that there are profits from the export business. That is the pre- requisite.
Jeyar Consultant & Investment Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madras
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6072 (SC) · Section. 80HHC
-
SC - SLP dismissed. HC had held as inadmissible u/s 37(1), a claim for reduction in value of closing stock on account of goods confiscated by Customs. Assessee is not entitled to claim any expenditure which had been incurred on account of any infraction of law
CIT vs Ambassador Industrial
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5970 (SC) · Section 37(1)
-
SC - When it is clearly mentioned that amendment in the statute is substantive in nature, assessee has no option to avail benefits even on retrospective basis. Retrospective benefit of amended Sec 40A(3) (amended w.e.f April 1,1996) is not available to assessee for entire block period of ten years, despite the amendment date falling within the block period.
M.G pictures Ltd vs ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5969 (SC)
-
SC - Once the income from leasing gas cylinders is accepted as the “business income”, which is taxed at the hands of the assessee as such, there is no reason how the depreciation on these gas cylinders could be disallowed on the ground that the cylinders were not purchased for “leasing business
K.M. Sugar Mills Limited vs. CIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5968 (SC)
-
SC - SLP Dismissed. Upholds HC's decision to hold Sec 245 HA(1)(iv) provisions 'arbitrary' to the extent it fixes the cut-off date as March 31, 2008. SC held that it is a well-considered judgment of the High Court and does not call for any interference.
UOI vs. Star Television News Limited
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5956 (SC)
-
SC - Validity of an Explanation added retrospectively to Section 26(4) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income Tax Act - While an amendment to overrule a judgement is not valid, it is permissible to retrospectively alter the character of the levy so as to save it from illegality.
ACIT (Agr. IT) vs. Netley ‘B’ Estate
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5877 (SC)
-
SC - The judgments of the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, to held that(1993 amendment in S.143(1A) w.e.f. 1989 is constitutionally valid and re-affirms that “income” u/s.143(1A) contemplates “losses” too) the retrospective effect given to the amendment would be arbitrary and unreasonable inasmuch as the provision, being a penal provision, would operate harshly on assessee are set aside.
CIT vs. Sati Oil Udyog Ltd & Anr
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5868 (SC) · Section 143(1A)
-
SC - Debenture interest is to be allowed as deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) in the year in which payment was made even though assessee had spread over interest in its books of account over period of five years.
Taparia Tools Limited vs. JCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5867 (SC)
-
SC - Donor can retain the right to use the gifted property and enjoy rent from it during his/her lifetime and “transfer” not vitiated u/s.123 of Transfer of Property Act.
Renikuntla Rajamma (D) By Lrs vs. K.Sarwanamma
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5855 (SC) · Section 123
-
Income derived from building was being applied for charitable purpose is to be clearly proved to avail building tax exemption- SC
SH MEDICAL CENTRE HOSPITAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5796 (SC)
-
SC - The activities of institutions be looked at carefully. If they are not genuine, or are not being carried out in accordance with all or any of the conditions subject to which approval has been given, such approval and exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) must forthwith be withdrawn
M/s. Queen’s Educational Society Versus Commissioner of Income Tax
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5786 (SC) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=60660&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
SC - For the purpose of Sec. 10(23C)(v) & (vi), mere surplus does not mean institution is existing for making profit. The predominant object test must be applied. The AO must verify the activities of the institution from year to year
Queens Educational Society vs. CIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5774 (SC) · Section 10(23C)(v) & (vi)
-
SC - Mere existence of an agreement between the assessee and its selling agents or payment of certain amounts as commission, assuming there was such payment, does not bind the Income Tax Officer to hold that the payment was made exclusively and wholly for the purpose of the assessee's business. Although there might be such an agreement in existence and the payments might have been made.
Premier Breweries Ltd, Karnataka Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5693 (SC) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=60591&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.