Category: Supreme Court

Archive for the ‘Supreme Court’ Category


DCIT vs. Gujarat Alkalies (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 12, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Commitment charges paid in respect of borrowed moneys are allowable as a deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act.

Mangat Ram vs. State (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 8, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The Supreme Court deprectaes the practice of the High Court in disposing of matters without recording reasons. Explains that while the Supreme Court itself, being the final court, may pass orders without reasons, the High Courts and lower courts are

K.C.C. Software Ltd vs. DIT (Inv.) (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 31, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Cash in bank is conceptually different from cash in hand. It is not permissible for the Revenue to withdraw money from the attached bank accounts. However, as the order u/s 132B was not challenged, no relief given. Directions given for

M/s Ahmed Anis vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 23, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Where the assessee had led satisfactory evidence that its business was that of a commission agent and not a trader and 10-11 years had passed, the assessee could not be held responsible for non-appearance of five traders to whom summons

CIT vs. Suresh N. Gupta (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 18, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

S. 158BB has to be read with the relevant Finance Act and the surcharge prescribed therein is applicable to a block assessment. The Proviso to s. 113 of the Act, though inserted by the Finance Act 2002 with effect from

Infosys Technologies (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 9, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

(i) A stock option which is subject to a ‘lock-in’ is not a chargeable perquisite u/s 17(2) on the date of grant, vesting or exercise. The benfit is purely notional. (ii) s. 17(2)(iiia) inserted w.e.f 1.4.2000 is not clarificatory; (iii)

Top