Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Supreme Court - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 2811 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2020 (3) TMI 182 - SUPREME COURT
Characterization of income - transport subsidy received - revenue or capital receipt - HELD THAT:- In respect of same assessee, the High Court for the subsequent assessment year 2001-2002 [2009 (9) TMI 572 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] has answered the question on the basis of the exposition of this Court in particular in ‘Jai Bhagwan Oil & Flour Mills vs. Union of India & Ors.’ [2009 (5) TMI 630 - SUPREME COURT] . Admittedly, this decision is accepted by the Department and no appeal is preferred against the same. - Decided in favour of the assessee
- 2020 (2) TMI 1306 - SUPREME COURT
Levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - receipt of interest on income tax refund u/s 244A - Timing of receipt of interest income and taxability of such interest in the year under consideration - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that once, the fact with regard to taxability of interest income in AY 2013-14 was not disputed by the Ld. AO, then he is erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961 for not offering interest income to tax for the year under consideration, more particularly when, the assessee has explained the reasons for not accounting and considering interest income to tax for the year under consideration. When, the assessee has offered to tax interest income in subsequent financial year, there is no reason for the Ld. AO to levy penalty on the same income for the year under consideration for not offering to tax said....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1293 - SUPREME COURT
Exemption u/s 11 - entitled for registration under section 12AA - Charitable activity u/s 2(15) - HELD THAT:- The purpose of section 12AA of the Act is to enable registration only of such trust or institution whose objects and activities are genuine. In other words, the Commissioner is bound to satisfy himself that the object of the Trust are genuine and that its activities are in furtherance of the objects of the Trust, that is equally genuine. Since section 12AA pertains to the registration of the Trust and not to assess of what a trust has actually done, we are of the view that the term ‘activities’ in the provision includes ‘proposed activities’. That is to say, a Commissioner is bound to consider whether the objects of the Trust are genuinely charitable in nature and whether the activities which the Trust prop....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1219 - SUPREME COURT
Payment of royalty - High Court vide impugned judgment answered the question formulated against the assessee relying on the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. [2009 (9) TMI 526 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the said decision has been considered in the subsequent decision in G.E. India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. . [2010 (9) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] and the court held that the question of payment of royalty ought to be determined by the High Court on merits and for that reason, it relegated the parties before the High Court. The same reasons would apply to the present case, as the High Court has not answered the question of payment of royalty on merits. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and order and relegate ....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1218 - SUPREME COURT
Assessment u/s 153C - petitioner has submitted no documents or material belonging to the petitioner were found, despite which, the Assessing Officer wishes to assess the petitioner on the basis of the material collected during such search relying on the amendment in section 153C of the Act with effect from 1.6.2015 - HELD THAT:- Delay condoned. Issue notice.
- 2020 (2) TMI 1151 - SUPREME COURT
Deduction u/s 80 HHC(4B) - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the stated issue in reference to Assessment Year 1998-1999 has been answered by the High Court on 05.09.2008. That decision having become final will apply proprio vigore to the subject assessment year i.e. 1996-1997, in terms of the aforementioned order of the Tribunal. We order accordingly. Deduction u/s 80M - non-allocating personal and administrative and financial expenses proportionately for computing net dividend income referred to in Section 80AA - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that thereafter the Assessing Officer completed the assessment in terms of the remand order and challenge thereto before the Tribunal has also become final. Be it noted that as regards the said claim, the High Court had observed that the issue has been answered in favour of the Revenue in Dis....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 997 - SUPREME COURT
Settlement commission order - additional income which was disclosed during the course of the hearing - HELD THAT:- The nature and extent of delay and the issues involved, we are of the view that it would be appropriate and proper, in the interests of justice, for the writ petition to be heard on merits by the High Court, subject to payment of costs, which would be a condition precedent. The High Court ought not to have dismissed the petition on the ground of delay. The appellant raises issues which are worthy of consideration on merits. We accordingly order and direct that conditional on the appellant paying a sum quantified at ₹ 3,00,000 to the second respondent, by way of costs, withing a period of six weeks from today, the judgment and order of the High Court [2018 (8) TMI 577 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] shall stand set aside and the wr....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 427 - SUPREME COURT
Refund of seized cash - deny relief by directing payment in terms of the order under Section 132(5) - HELD THAT:- Direction for refund was applicable if no notice would be issued within the time stipulated. In any case, the learned judges had the option to treat the writ petition as an execution application or could have given liberty to the appellant to file an execution application which as per the law of limitation can be filed within 12 years. This aspect has been completely over-looked and not been given due consideration. The respondents do not and cannot dispute that they have to refund the seized amount. Further, considerable delay and failure to make the payment constitutes and is inseparable from the cause of action as the delay and negligence is on the part of the authorities. The appellant does not seek setting-aside or quashi....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 376 - SUPREME COURT
Deduction u/s 43B disallowed - advance payment of Excise Duty which represented unutilised MODVAT credit without incurring the liability of such payment - HELD THAT:- The proviso to Section 43B provides that nothing contained in the Section shall apply in relation to any sum which is actually paid by assessee on or before due date applicable in his case for furnishing the return in respect of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred. The crucial words in the proviso to Section 43B are “in respect of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred”. The proviso takes care of the situation when liability to pay a sum has incurred but could not be paid in the year in question and has been paid in the next financial year before the date of submission of the Return. In the present ....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 518 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - tribunal held that the notice issued u/s 148 was not valid on ground that AO has not demonstrated the failure of the assessee in disclosing the material fact also confirmed by HC - HELD THAT:- No reason to interfere in the matter. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
- 2020 (1) TMI 517 - SUPREME COURT
Assessment u/s 153A - allegation of generation of unaccounted money and also transfer of such money in exchange of share capital - proving any accommodation entry - reliance on third party statement - CIT(A) and ITAT deleted the additions - HELD THAT:- No reason to interfere in the matter. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
- 2019 (12) TMI 991 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of Revision of Income Tax Returns (ITR) after the expiry of the due date prescribed under Section 139(5) on account of the pendency of proceedings for amalgamation of the assessee companies with other companies in the group under Sections 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013 - Succession to business otherwise than on death - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the predecessor companies/transferor companies have been succeeded by the Appellants/transferee companies who have taken over their business along with all assets, liabilities, profits and losses etc. In view of the provisions of Section 170(1) of the Income Tax Act, the Department is required to assess the income of the Appellants after taking into account the revised Returns filed after amalgamation of the companies. We find that the learned Single Judge had rightly allowed th....... + More
- 2019 (12) TMI 702 - SUPREME COURT
LTCG - Transfer of a capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(47) - Power of Attorney (POA) for development of land - compromise deed - as per the deed, various amounts had to be paid by the Builder to the owner so that a complete extinguishment of the owner’s rights in the property would then take place - HELD THAT:- Section 53A of the T.P. Act be attracted, first and foremost, the transferee must, in part performance of the contract, have taken possession of the property or any part thereof. Secondly, the transferee must have performed or be willing to perform his part of the agreement. It is only if these two important conditions, among others, are satisfied that the provisions of Section 53A can be said to be attracted on the facts of a given case. On a reading of the agreement to sell dated 15.05.1998, what is clear is tha....... + More
- 2019 (12) TMI 324 - SUPREME COURT
Restraining the petition from transferring funds overseas - Offences under Section 277 of Income Tax Act,1961 - Trial court passed the order - HC [2018 (7) TMI 2075 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] set aside the order and restored the matter before trial court to have given an opportunity to the respondent - Held that:- Having regard to the submissions made at the Bar, the special leave petition is disposed of giving liberty to the parties to raise all the contentions before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai.
- 2019 (12) TMI 268 - SUPREME COURT
Characterization of income - revenue or capital receipt - HELD THAT:- The substance of the admission is that the appellant was holding the post of Secretary of the Institution [Paramahamsa Foundation (R) Trust] until 1996 but he left the institution after new members were elected as the managing committee. That being the case, the question of appellant invoking the principle of capital asset does not arise. It may have been a different matter if it was a case of life time appointment of the appellant as Secretary of the concerned Institution. No such evidence was produced by the appellant before the assessing officer or before us. Taking over-all view of the matter, we uphold the conclusion reached by the High Court that the amount received in the hands of appellant-assessee cannot be treated as capital receipt. Thus, the order of the Assessing Officer is affirmed. Hence, no interference is warranted in this appeal.
- 2019 (12) TMI 84 - SUPREME COURT
Review petition - pre-emptive purchase passed by the appropriate authority u/s 269UD - HELD THAT:- In appeal before this Court, the appellants reiterated largely the same submissions which were addressed in the High Court and also put forward a few new submissions. However, this Court found no reason to accept those submissions while holding that the appropriate authority and the High Court were right in their respective approach, the reasoning and the conclusion. This Court found that a categorical finding was recorded by the appropriate authority that the fair market value of the property in question was 15% more than the apparent consideration mentioned by the parties in the agreement of sale. This Court found no reason to hold a fresh inquiry into the issues, which are largely of facts, particularly when the issues had already been ex....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 1383 - SUPREME COURT
Computation of deduction u/s 10B - Foreign currency provided for software development services outside India - HELD THAT:- In agreement that M/S MPHASIS LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MPHASIS BFL LTD.) [2019 (2) TMI 122 - SC ORDER] preferred by the Revenue in respect of connected which was disposed of by the very same common Order [2014 (8) TMI 690 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] having taken note similar grounds raised in the special leave petition. Hence taking note of the fact that in respect of common judgment this Court has already dismissed relating to the Assessment Year 2004-2005 and in the present case except that issue relates to AY 2003-2004 all other aspects are on the very same point, we are not inclined to entertain the instant petition. Special leave petition shall stand dismissed.
- 2019 (11) TMI 1118 - SUPREME COURT
Tax on distributed income to shareholders u/s 115QA - Buy back of shares - availability of appellate remedy - HC refused to exercise Jurisdiction under Article 226 because of availability of an alternate efficacious remedy - Dividend distribution tax (DDT) - HELD THAT:- The computation and extent of liability is determined under the provisions of Section 115QA of the Act. Such determination under the Act would squarely get covered under said expression. There is no reason why the scope of the such expression be restricted and confined to issues arising out of or touching upon assessment proceedings either under Section 143 or Section 144 of the Act. If the submission of the appellant is accepted and the concerned expression as stated hereinabove in Section 246(1)(a) or in Section 246A(1)(a) is to be considered as relatable to the liabilit....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 1081 - SUPREME COURT
Failed auctions - Property acquired by the Union of India in 1994 under Section 269UD(1) of the Income Tax Act, could only be sold in 2018 - appellant made an offer to the Central Board of Direct Taxes (hereinafter referred to as ‘CBDT’) to purchase the aforesaid property for a sum of ₹ 32.11 crores - HELD THAT:- As has been pointed out, several auctions were conducted from the year 1994, including an auction as recent as 27.03.2017 which failed to elicit a response from any buyer. Ultimately, the auction with the reserve price of ₹ 30 crores, on which the appellant bid was ₹ 30.21 crores, was kept in abeyance. The reason that is available from the record is in a Report dated 26.09.2017 in which it was pointed out that this figure was considerably lower than the figure offered by the appellant itself at ͅ....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 940 - SUPREME COURT
Condonation of delay - delay of 1754 days - HELD THAT:- The appellant(s) had asserted that they had no knowledge about passing of order dated 29.12.2003, until they were confronted with the auction notices in June 2008 issued by the competent authority. Soon thereafter, the appellant(s) filed appeal(s) accompanied by the subject application(s) on 19.07.2008. Notably, the respondent(s) did not expressly refute the stand taken by the appellant(s) - that they had no knowledge about passing of order dated 29.12.2003 until June, 2008. Unless that fact was to be refuted, the question of disbelieving the stand taken by the appellant(s) on affidavit, cannot arise and for which reason, the High Court should have shown indulgence to the appellant(s) by condoning the delay in filing the concerned appeal(s). This aspect has been glossed over by the H....... + More