Category: Supreme Court

Archive for the ‘Supreme Court’ Category


B. M. Malani vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 2, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Levy of interest is for compensating the revenue from loss suffered by non-deposit of tax by the assessee within the time specified therefor. This principle should also be applied for determining whether any hardship had been caused or not. A genuine hardship means a genuine difficulty. It cannot be concluded that a person having large assets would never be in difficulty as he can sell those assets and pay the amount of interest levied.

CIT vs. HCL Comnet (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 24, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Provision for bad and doubtful debts cannot be added to the “book profits” for purposes of section 115JA because they merely represent the dimunition in the value of an asset and are not a provision for an unascertained liability.

CIT vs. Ponni Sugars (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 19, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Where the Government formulated a scheme of subsidy to encourage the setting up of sugar factories and to make them viable under which new sugar factories were entitled to a subsidy in the form of enhancement of free sale sugar quota and excise duty rebate thereon which could only be used for repayment of loans taken for the unit and the question arose whether such subsidy was taxable HELD, in determining whether the subsidy is capital or revenue, the “purpose” test had to be adopted. The source of the subsidy, its form and the point of time when it is paid are irrelevant. On facts, held, following Sahney Steel 228 ITR 253 that the subsidy was capital in nature.

Foster’s Australia vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 19, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Where the assessee had filed a SLP in the Supreme Court to challenge the ruling of the AAR without first filing a writ petition in the High Court, it was directed to withdraw the SLP and file a writ petition.

ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch SE (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 15, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Where the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by holding that it was not entitled to exemption u/s 11 and subsequently, on an application filed by the assessee u/s 254(2), recalled the said order on the ground that it had not considered a judgement of the jurisdictional High Court and that there was a mistake apparent from the record and the question arose whether such recall was justified, HELD, upholding the order of the Tribunal:

Mysodet (P) Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 10, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Where in respect of the asst. year 1990-91, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80-HHC on traded goods on the proportion that the export turnover bore to the total turnover even though there were no profits from the export activity and the High Court held, relying on IPCA Laboratories vs. CIT 266 ITR 521 (SC), that in the absence of export profits deduction u/s 80-HHC was not available, HELD, reversing the judgement of the High Court that in accordance with the CBDT Circular issued under the then prevailing s. 80-HHC, deduction was allowable on the proportionate basis notwithstanding the absence of profits from the export activity and the judgement in IPCA Laboratories had no application.

CIT vs. Enron Oil & Gas (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 4, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Where the assessee had entered into a production sharing contract with a consortium which was governed by section 42 of the Act and the assessee made contribution at a certain rate to the consortium whereas the expenditure incurred out of the said contribution stood converted on the basis of a different exchaneg rate which exercise resulted into a loss on conversion of foreign currency to the assessee and the AO held the loss to be a notional loss, Held,

State of H.P. vs. Sardara Singh (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 1, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Where the High Court summarily dismissed an application without giving any reasons HELD that this manner of dealing left a lot to be desired. It was imperative to record reasons and the failure to do so rendered the order unsustainable. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the “inscrutable face of the sphinx”, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision.

Agricultural PMC vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 22, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee is not a “local authority” after insertion of the Explanation in Section 10(20) vide Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1.4.2003 and is consequently not entitled to the benefit under Section 10 of the 1961 Act.

CIT vs. Gold Coin Health (Supreme Court – Larger Bench)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 20, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

the amendment to Explanation 4 to s. 271(1)(c), though made with effect from 1st April 2003, should be treated as clarificatory and retrospective.

Top