Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Supreme Court - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 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 (2) TMI 1285 - SUPREME COURT
Deduction u/s 80IC - substantial expansion - exemption at the same rate of 100% beyond the period of five years on the ground that the assessee has now carried out substantial expansion in its manufacturing unit - HELD THAT:- Objectives for which Section 80-IC was enacted, an irresistible conclusion would be to grant 100% deduction of the profits and gains even from the year when there is substantial expansion in the existing unit. After all, this substantial expansion involves great deal of investment which has to be, at least 50% in the plant and machinery, of the book value thereof before taking depreciation in any year. With an expansion of such a nature not only there would be increase in production but generation of more employment as well, which would benefit the local populace. It is for this reason, carrying out substantial expan....... + More
- 2019 (2) TMI 1216 - SUPREME COURT
Condonation of delay of 290 days - HELD THAT:- In the present case a self-operating order was passed by the Prothonotary, High Court, Bombay as a result of which Income Tax Appeal (Lodging) stood dismissed for nonprosecution. Notice of motion seeking condonation of delay of 290 days in curing the defects was later rejected by the High Court by its order dated 22.03.2018, which is presently under challenge. All other matters also stood dismissed for same reason. This Court had passed an order on 13.11.2018 seeking an affidavit from the Department as to who were responsible in the matter for not curing the defects in time. An affidavit has now been filed by Deputy Director of Income Tax, Directorate of Legal and Research, New Delhi,
- 2019 (2) TMI 326 - SUPREME COURT
Mandation of linkage of PAN with Aadhar - Permission to file Income Tax returns without complying with the condition of providing Aadhar Card registration number or Aadhar Card Enrolment number - Held that:- As upheld the vires of section 139AA of the Income Tax Act linkage of PAN with Aadhar is mandatory. Insofar as assessment year 2018-19 is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the respondents informs that the respondents had filed the income tax returns in terms of the orders of the High Court and the assessment has also been completed. We therefore make it clear that for the assessment year 2019-20, the income tax return shall be filed in terms of the judgment passed by this Court.
- 2019 (2) TMI 325 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of reopening of assessment - notice against non existent entity / amalgamated company - eligibility of reasons to believe - notice not addressed in the correct name - Held that:- In the present case, it has been submitted that, as a matter of fact, the draft assessment order and the final assessment order make a clear reference to the fact that M/s. Suzuki Powertrain India Ltd. amalgamated with M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Moreover, it has been urged that there was no prejudice to the assessee since it was evident to it at all times that the assessment which was carried out was with respect to the erstwhile business of M/s. Suzuki Powertrain India Ltd., which has been amalgamated with the successor company. In view of the above submissions, we direct that notice shall issue. See SKY LIGHT HOSPITALITY LLP VERSUS ACIT [2018 (2) TMI 1093 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
- 2019 (2) TMI 181 - SUPREME COURT
Cancellation of Registration u/s 12AA - charitable activity - bogus donation - Held that:- In the proceedings initiated for the cancellation of registration, mainly it was the case of the assessee that proceedings for cancellation were initiated only on the ex-parte statement of the representative of the donor, without giving any opportunity to the assessee. Though a survey was also conducted on the assessee, but nothing adverse was found during such survey to support the case of the appellant, to cancel the registration. Also brought to our notice the various provisions of the Act but, at the same time, in support of the arguments that all donations are not exempted, but having regard to the reasons recorded in the impugned order, it is not necessary for us to delve deep at this stage. From the perusal of the order passed by the High Cou....... + More
- 2019 (1) TMI 1395 - SUPREME COURT
Reopening of assessment - taxability of anonymous donations received in Hundies maintained by the temple trust under Section 115BBC - eligible reason to believe that income had escaped assessment - Held that:- The grievance that the High Court ought to have dealt with the challenge to the reopening of the assessment on the ground that there was no reason to believe that income had escaped assessment has to be appreciated in the context of the facts of the present case. The applicability of Section 115BBC is the central issue which is pending before the CIT (A) for Assessment Year 2015-16. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the High Court has justifiably held that it would not be appropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 when the same issue is already pending before the CIT (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2015-1....... + More
- 2019 (1) TMI 758 - SUPREME COURT
Condonation of delay - delay of 362 days - reasons for delay - Held that:- As per the High Court, the said delay is not satisfactorily explained. We have, however, gone through the application for condonation of delay which was submitted before the High Court. It appears 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. 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 Rupees one lakh, to be paid by the appellant to the respondent within a period of four weeks. The matter is remitted back to the High Court. The High Court shall decide the appeal on merits.
- 2019 (1) TMI 757 - SUPREME COURT
Disallowance of interest being the interest referable to interest free loans and advances given to subsidiary companies - interest free fund available to the assessee is sufficient to meet its investment - Held that:- The issue raises a pure question of fact. The High Court has noted the finding of the Tribunal that the interest free funds available to the assessee were sufficient to meet its investment. Hence, it could be presumed that the investments were made from the interest free funds available with the assessee. The Tribunal has also followed its own order for Assessment Year 2002-03. In view of the above findings, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court in regard to the first question. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed in regard to the first question. Claim of depreciation - optional and could not b....... + More
- 2019 (1) TMI 415 - SUPREME COURT
Addition u/s 56(2)(viia) - reopening of assessment - CBDT (Central Board of Direct Taxes) Circular No.10/2018 dated 31st December, 2018, which pertained to the clarification issued in respect of applicability of Section 56(2)(viia) as well as another Circular No.2/2019 dated 4th January, 2019, vide which Circular No.10/2018 dated 31st December, 2018 has been withdrawn by the CBDT - Since these circulars are not part of the record, Mr. Tushar Mehta submits that the appropriate course of action is to file these circulars supported by an affidavit and also to state the purpose for which the circulars have been referred to and relied upon - Held that:- Mr. P. Chidambaram wants and is granted one week's time to file the affidavit along with documents. Response thereto can be filed within one week thereafter. List on 29.1.2019. Interim order passed on 4.12.2018 to continue in the meantime.
- 2019 (1) TMI 226 - SUPREME COURT
Applicability of provisions of Section 80DD - payment of annuity of lump sum amount for the benefit of a dependant, being a person with disability, in the event of the death of the individual or the member of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) in whose name subscription to the scheme stipulated in the said provision has been made - Petition is stated to be filed in the interest of handicapped children whose parents have taken Jeevan Aadhar Policy (Table 114) from the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short, ‘LIC’) for the livelihood of their children - grievance of the petitioner is that benefit of Jeevan Aadhar policy should not be deferred till the death of the assessee/life assured and it should be allowed to be utilised for the benefit of the disabled person even during the lifetime of the assessee. Held that:- As noted from the ....... + More
- 2018 (12) TMI 608 - SUPREME COURT
Addition on account of guarantee commission chargeable to its associated enterprises - tribunal deleted addition - whether the benchmark fixed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for the international transaction by considering arm’s length rate of the bank guarantee at 3% under Section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was correct? - Held that:- Question No.1 has been rightly decided by the High Court in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. The same would, therefore, not require reopening in this appeal. Interest charged u/s 234B - MAT computation - Whether interest was not payable by the assessee/respondent under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on failure to deposit the advance tax in respect of tax payable under Section 115JB? - Held that:- The matter will require an in-depth hearing. List the appeal on the said question i.e. question No.(ii) as per its turn.
- 2018 (11) TMI 1127 - SUPREME COURT
Condonation of delay - appeal was defective and the appellant took abnormal time of 1371 days in removing those defects - Held that:- Since there was abnormal delay, the Registrar/Prothonotary & Senior Master of the Bombay High Court passed the Order dismissing the appeal for non-removal of office objections. The appellant herein took out a Notice of Motion against the aforesaid Order which has been rejected by the High Court vide the impugned Judgment. No doubt, there is a long delay in removing the objections, we are of the opinion that in a case like this the High Court should have condoned the delay in removing the office objections and heard the matter on merits. However, for the said delay caused by the appellant, the appellant shall pay cost of Rupees one lac within four weeks, which shall be deposited with the Supreme Court Bar As....... + More
- 2018 (10) TMI 874 - SUPREME COURT
Scope of Exemption u/s 10(20) - Municipal Committee within the meaning of Explanation to Section 10(20) - Urban Improvement Trust constituted under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 - local authority within the meaning of Explanation to Section 10(20) - Held that:- The Municipal Board, Kota performs its functions, in areas where Municipal Board still exists. There is no reason to accept that Urban Improvement Trust is a Municipal Committee within the meaning of Section 10(20) Explanation Clause (iii). Coming back to Section 105, which provides for ultimate dissolution of Trust and transfer of its assets and liabilities to the Municipal Board, this provision does not in any manner improve the case of the assessee. When the Trust is dissolved or at dissolution, properties and funds and dues vested in or realisable by the Trust shall....... + More
- 2018 (9) TMI 1936 - SUPREME COURT
Order without taking note of the relevant materials and the objections raised by the petitioners - HELD THAT:- It is an order based on the ipse dixit of the Assessing Officer without adverting to consider the relevant materials produced before him and if that is the factual position as it emerges on going through the detailed order, we have no hesitation in holding that it is an order without taking note of the relevant materials and the objections raised by the petitioners and this itself is sufficient to hold that the order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is a cardinal principle of law that if relevant materials and objections are produced before a quasi judicial authority, the quasi judicial authority is duty bound, under law to advert to consider the same, discuss them and then reject it by record....... + More
- 2018 (9) TMI 1814 - SUPREME COURT
Monetary limit - maintainability of appeal - HELD THAT:- In these appeals, the tax effect is less than ₹ 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore) and are covered by the Circular of CBDT. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
- 2018 (8) TMI 1733 - SUPREME COURT
Condonation of delay - delay of 596 days - Held that:- despite delayed filing of appeal, the petitioners (revenue) have given a totally misleading statement before this Court. - We are shocked that the Union of India through the Commissioner of Income Tax has taken the matter so casually. Under the circumstances, we dismiss the petition with costs of ₹ 10 lacs to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from today. The amount be utilized for juvenile justice issues.
- 2018 (8) TMI 1374 - SUPREME COURT
TDS u/s 194I - TDS on annual lease rent paid to Greater Noida - Scope of the term Rent - reliance on the Circular issued by the CBDT before amendment to the provisions of the act - Held that:- Noida/Greater Noida is entitled for the benefit of Section 194A(3)(iii)(f) has to be approved. - Held that:- A perusal of the above circular indicate that circular was issued on the strength of Section 10(20A) and Section 10(20) as it existed at the relevant time. Section 10(20) has been amended by Finance Act, 2002 by adding an explanation and further Section 10(20A) has been omitted w.e.f. 01.04.2003. The very basis of the circular has been knocked out by the amendments made by Finance Act, 2002. Thus, the Circular cannot be relied by Noida/Greater Noida to contend that there is no requirement of deduction of tax at source under Section 194-I. Thu....... + More
- 2018 (8) TMI 1209 - SUPREME COURT
Deduction u/s 80IC - claiming the exemption at the same rate of 100% beyond the period of five years on the ground that the assessee has now carried out substantial expansion in its manufacturing unit - units established in certain special category States - units situated in the State of Sikkim, Himachal Pradesh and Uttaranchal and North-Eastern States. Held that:- The essence of Sib-Section 3 as well as Sub-Section 6 have already been reproduced above. Whereas the exemption is provided @ 100% of such profits and gains for five assessment years commencing with the initial assessment years and, thereafter, 25% (or 30% where the assessee is a company) of the profits and gains for next five years. The deduction is limited to a period of 10 years. When we keep in mind the aforesaid scheme and spirit behind this provision, such a situation can....... + More
- 2018 (7) TMI 664 - SUPREME COURT
TDS u/s 194A - NOIDA - interest paid to the Authority on its deposits - Authority is Corporation or not - conditions to be satisfied as established by a Central, State or Provincial Act as per hte Notification dated 22.10.1970 - Held that:- A Constitution Bench of this Court in Sukhdev Singh and Others vs. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Another, (1975 (2) TMI 111 - SUPREME COURT)had occasion to consider the nature and character of Corporation including its early history. Justice Mathew, delivering his concurrent opinion noted that Corporations in 17th, 18th and 19th Centuries were far more like the bodies corporate we call “public authorities” today. Section 194A(3)(iii) clauses (b), (c) and (d) refer to expression “established”. In sub clause (b) expression used is “established by or under a Central,....... + More
- 2018 (7) TMI 555 - SUPREME COURT
Revision u/s 263 - Deductibility of expenses u/s 37(1) of the Act – Fluctuation in rate of exchange - Held that:- As submitted by the learned ASG that the assessee had taken up the ground of jurisdiction of Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Act. However, this ground was ultimately not pressed and the ITAT did not allow the appeal on this ground but on merits. Therefore, there was no finding of ITAT that the exercise of power under Section 263 of the Act by Commissioner of Income Tax was erroneous and, thus, there was no question for challenging that aspect of the matter. In the aforesaid circumstances, we permit the Revenue to file an application for review before the High Court and when such a review application is filed within one month from today the same shall be decided on merits. In case the High Court decides the review application against the appellant, the appellant while challenging that order would be at liberty to challenge the impugned order as well.