Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Supreme Court - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 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.
- 2019 (5) TMI 1165 - SUPREME COURT
Treatment of loss from share trading - speculative loss OR business loss - set off of speculation loss to be against profits of trading in futures and options - effect of statement of assessee made before AO - scope of amendment made in Explanation to Section 73 by the Finance (No 2) Act 2014 - retrospective OR prospective - HELD THAT:- In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that the assessee was registered as an NBFC under the provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. Section 73(1) does not define specifically, the circumstances in which the principal business of a company would be regarded as a business of the specified description. In the present case, the principal business was urged to be the granting of loans and advances. We cannot accept this submission and are of the view that the High Court was justifie....... + More
- 2019 (5) TMI 201 - SUPREME COURT
Hearing of appeal by High Court - framing of substantial question(s) of law u/s 260A (3) - appeal heard on merit without framing questions, on the basis of questions of law raised in appeal - interpretation of language of section 40(a)(ia) - TDS u/s 194C - payments made to the harvesters and transporters - HELD THAT:- We find that in Para 4, the High Court observed, "Assessee has raised the following questions of law in its appeals” and then set out four questions. Likewise, in Para 5, the High Court observed, "Revenue has raised the following questions of law in its appeals” and then set out three questions. It is not in dispute that the High Court did not frame any question as required u/s 260A (3) As relying on M/s A.A. Estate Pvt. Ltd. . [2019 (4) TMI 957 - SUPREME COURT] these appeals have to be allowed and the ....... + More
- 2019 (4) TMI 1395 - SUPREME COURT
Recording of wrong facts & reasoning by Tribunal - benefit of deduction u/s.57(iii) - whether payment was made for enlarging the control and management over - capital expenditure or revenue expenditure - whether the High Court [2017 (8) TMI 647 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the department - HELD THAT:- We find that the Tribunal did not correctly appreciate as to what AO and CIT (A) held and what was their reasoning which led to their respective conclusion. Having wrongly observed about their respective reasoning and the finding, the Tribunal proceeded to examine the case and eventually reversed the order of CIT (Appeals). The High court did not notice the aforesaid observation of the Tribunal and upheld the order of the Tribunal. In such a situation like the one arising in the case and keeping in....... + More
- 2019 (4) TMI 980 - SUPREME COURT
Recovery proceedings - Attachment orders - HELD THAT:- If the Principal Commissioner, Income Tax, Chennai is satisfied in that behalf, the attachment with respect to other properties may be lifted so as to enable the petitioner to liquidate any of the assets and make the payment in terms of the order passed by the High Court.
- 2019 (4) TMI 957 - SUPREME COURT
Mandatory procedure u/s 260A for appeal before High Court - reopening u/s 147 - no factual foundation for issue of notice - no “escaped assessment” - no valid “reason to believe” - High Court dismissed the appeal stating no substantial question of law arises - distinction between the questions proposed by the appellant for admission of the appeal and the questions framed by the Court - HELD THAT:- The questions, which are proposed by the appellant, fall under Section 260A (2) (c) of the Act whereas the questions framed by the High Court fall under Section 260A (3) of the Act. The appeal is heard on merits only on the questions framed by the High Court under subsection (3) of Section 260A of the Act as provided u/s 260A (4). In other words, the appeal is heard only on the questions framed by the Court. If the High C....... + More
- 2019 (4) TMI 790 - SUPREME COURT
Registration u/s 12A with retrospective effect - re-assessment orders - HELD THAT:- Since the High Court [2015 (2) TMI 802 - KERALA HIGH COURT] disposed of the appeals against the orders of re-assessment merely on the basis of its decision on the issue of registration under Section 12A of the Act, the appeals will have to be restored to the file of the High Court. The submission has to be accepted.
- 2019 (4) TMI 633 - SUPREME COURT
Reopening u/s 147 - validity of notice u/s 148 - original assessment u/s 143(1) - "change of the opinion" - High Court dismissing the Revenue's appeal in limine holding that no substantial question of law involved - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that the High Court was not justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appeal did not involve any substantial question of law. We are, therefore, constrained to allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the High Court for deciding the appellant’s appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law. Four questions framed need to be answered by the High Court on their respective merits while deciding the appeal filed by the Revenue (appellant herein) u/s 260A. We are, therefore, of the view that such order is not legally sustainable in law ....... + More
- 2019 (4) TMI 222 - SUPREME COURT
Interest on Fixed Deposit - Claim u/s 80HHC - AO worked out the deduction under Section 80HHC by adopting negative figure and computed the figure accordingly, thereby making a deduction - HELD THAT:- SLP dismissed. Appeal dismissed as below the prescribed monetary limits.
- 2019 (4) TMI 65 - SUPREME COURT
Challenge of stricter passed by High Court against AO - adverse remarks - HELD THAT:- High Court was not justified in its remarks against the petitioner and in issuing the directions which it has issued. The High Court, in the course of its judgment has issued a slew of directions including: (i) The necessity of weeding out ‘deadwood’; (ii) imposition of costs of ₹ 1.5 lakhs which are to be apportioned among two officers, out of them being the petitioner; (iii) Making an adverse entry in the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner; and (iv) Denial of promotion including monetary benefits to the petitioner. Apart from the fact that these directions were issued without specific notice to the petitioner, we find that they were wholly unnecessary having regard to the lis before the High Court. We accordingly, expunge the adverse r....... + More
- 2019 (3) TMI 1469 - SUPREME COURT
Nature of amendment - prospective or retrospective - clarificatory amendment to remove ambiguity - Power of AO to extend time for the submission of the audit report directed u/s 142(2C) - Tribunal came to the conclusion that prior to the insertion of the expression “suo motu” with effect from 1 April 2008 in Section 142(2C) AO had no jurisdiction to extend time for the submission of the report of an auditor appointed under sub section (2A), of his own accord - also assessment which was made under Section 153A, in respect of the assessment years in question, was barred by limitation - Revenue adopted a contrary position, submitting that even before 1 April 2008, the jurisdiction of the assessing officer to extend time for the submission of the audit report was not confined to a situation in which the assessee had made an applic....... + More
- 2019 (3) TMI 1172 - SUPREME COURT
Condonation of delay - delay of 362 days - reasons for delay - As per the High Court, the said delay is not satisfactorily explained - HELD THAT:- The main cause of delay was difference of opinion between the two officers and ultimately legal opinion was taken and it was decided to file the appeal. In view of the aforesaid and having regard to the importance of the matter, we are of the opinion that the High Court should hear the appeal on merits. We, thus, set aside the impugned order. The respondent can be compensated by award of cost. We condone the delay in filing the appeal in the High Court, subject to payment of cost of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), to be paid by the appellant to the respondent within a period of four weeks. The matter is remitted back to the High Court.
- 2019 (3) TMI 903 - SUPREME COURT
Eligibility to deduction u/s 35D to the respondent Bank as an industrial undertaking - High Court justification in dismissing the appellant's appeal - non forming substantial question of law - HELD THAT:- The need to remand the case to the High Court is called for due to the following reasons. First, the High Court did not frame any substantial question of law as is required to be framed under Section 260A of the Act though heard the appeal bipartite. High Court did not dismiss the appeal in limine on the ground that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law; Second, the High Court dismissed the appeal without deciding any issue arising in the case saying that it is not necessary. The main issue involved in this appeal, as rightly taken note of by the High Court in para 6, was with regard to the applicability of Section ....... + More
- 2019 (3) TMI 703 - SUPREME COURT
Proceeding in case of non-operational/ dissolved / struck off company - Appeal filed by Department before High Court was dismissed on the ground that it has rendered infructuous - non consideration of Section 506(5) proviso (a) of the Companies Act and Section 176 to 178 (discontinuance of business or dissolution)- HELD THAT:- Mere perusal of the impugned order quoted supra would go to show that the High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that it has rendered infructuous because it was brought to its notice that the name of the company the assessee has been struck off from the Register of the Company u/s 560(5) of the Companies Act, 1956. High Court was of the view that since the respondent Company stands dissolved as a result of the order passed by the Registrar of the Companies under Section 560 (5) of the Companies Act, the appea....... + More
- 2019 (3) TMI 402 - SUPREME COURT
Waiver of interest chargeable u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C granted by the Settlement Commission in original order - Rectification filed - Rectification of above order was allowed by commission - Assessee challenged before High Court - High Court held that no rectification is permissible in view of decision of Supreme Court in case of Brij Lal and ors [2010 (10) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT] - department, thereupon, challenging original order - High Court inter-alia hold that "13. Under the circumstances, we direct modification of the order of Settlement Commission dated 11.08.2000 by reversing the waiver of interest in terms of Settlement Commission's directions contained in its order dated 11.10.2002. In other words, we adopt the same directions for modification of the Settlement Commission's original order dated 11.08.2000." - can Quashed order co....... + More
- 2019 (3) TMI 323 - SUPREME COURT
Addition u/s 68 - expansion of scope of primary onus - unexplained credit entries /share capital - non discharge of initial onus of proof by assessee to establish by cogent and reliable evidence of the identity of the investor companies, the credit-worthiness of the investors, and genuineness of the transaction - HELD THAT:- The principles which emerge where sums of money are credited as Share Capital/Premium are :- i. The assessee is under a legal obligation to prove the genuineness of the transaction, the identity of the creditors, and credit-worthiness of the investors who should have the financial capacity to make the investment in question, to the satisfaction of the AO, so as to discharge the primary onus. - ii. The Assessing Officer is duty bound to investigate the credit-worthiness of the creditor/ subscriber, verify the identity ....... + More
- 2019 (3) TMI 321 - SUPREME COURT
Addition u/s 37 and 40A - distribution of profit in the guise of excessive price paid to the members against purchase of sugarcane - excessive and unreasonable cane purchase price paid to the members of the sugarcane Co-operative Society - amount paid by the society to its members/non-members above the SMP price/price determined under Clauses 3 & 5A of the Control Order, 1966 - excess cane price paid to the cane growers over the SMP - purchase price paid is excessive and unreasonable - sharing of profit/appropriation of profit V/S allowable as expenditure - HELD THAT:- to the extent of the component of profit which will be a part of the final determination of SAP and/or the final price/additional purchase price fixed under Clause 5A would certainly be and/or said to be an appropriation of profit. However, at the same time, the entire/whol....... + More
- 2019 (3) TMI 171 - SUPREME COURT
Deduction u/s 80HH - computation of deduction - whether it is to be available out of ‘income’ as computed under the Act or out of ‘profits and gains’, without deducting therefrom ‘depreciation’ and ‘investment allowance’? - HELD THAT:- Reading of Section 80HH along with Section 80A would clearly signify that such a deduction has to be of gross profits and gains, i.e., before computing the income as specified in Sections 30 to 43D of the Act. Correctly pointed out by Division Bench in the reference order that in Motilal Pesticides case, the Court followed the judgment rendered in the M/s. Cloth Traders (P) Ltd. which was a case under Section 80M of the Act, on the premise that language of Section 80HH and Section 80M is the same. This basis is clearly incorrect as the language of two provisions is materially different. We are, therefore, o....... + More
- 2019 (3) TMI 66 - SUPREME COURT
Dismissal of revenue appeal by High court without framing the questions - High Court jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal filed under Section 260A - no substantial question of law - HELD THAT:- High Court did not dismiss the appeal in limine but dismissed it after hearing both the parties. In such a situation, the High Court should have framed the question(s) and answered them by assigning the reasons accordingly one way or the other by exercising powers under subsections (4) and (5) of Section 260A of the Act. As mentioned above, in the absence of any discussion or/and the reasoning/ground as to why the order of ITAT does not suffer from any illegality and why the grounds of Revenue are not acceptable and why the appeal does not involve any substantial question(s) of law or though framed cannot be answered in Revenue’s favour, the impugned....... + More
- 2019 (2) TMI 1599 - SUPREME COURT
Addition u/s 43B - conversion of unpaid interest into a funded interest loan treating the same as interest payment - HELD THAT:- The provision of Section 43B covers a host of different situations. The statutory Explanation 3C inserted by the Finance Act, 2006 is squarely applicable in the facts of the present case. It appears that the attention of the High Court was not invited to Explanation 3C, we are, thus, of the view that the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the deduction as claimed by the assessee. The Appellate Authority, ITAT and the High Court erred in reversing the said disallowance. - Decided against assessee.
- 2019 (2) TMI 1521 - SUPREME COURT
Condonation of delay - Reasons of delay - HELD THAT:- The explanation given by the appellant and rejected the Notice of Motion. The main reason given in the affidavit was that Ex- Chairman and Shareholder of the appellant/company Late Shri Inder Bhan Bhasin, who was looking after the affairs of the appellant, was suffering from health ailment due to which he was hospitalized, who subsequently died on 08.05.2017. The explanation given by the appellant was not accepted by the High Court. We are of the view that sufficient cause was shown for condonation of delay in filing the appeals which ought to have been accepted by the High Court. We, thus, set aside the order of the High Court dated 05.07.2018, condone the delay in filing the appeals. Appeals are restored before the High Court to be heard on merits.