Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › Steel Authority vs. STO (Supreme Court)

Steel Authority vs. STO (Supreme Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 19, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:


Where the Appellate Commissioner disposed of the appeal by a non-reasoned order, held that a statutory appeal could not be disposed of in that manner. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice.” “Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made; in other words, a speaking-out.

Related Posts:

  • CIT vs. Hapur Pilkhuwa Development Authority (Supreme Court) First of all this petition has been filed after a delay of 596 days. There is an inadequate and unconvincing explanation given for the delay in filing the petition. Secondly, it is mentioned in the proforma for first listing that a similar matter being C.A. No. 7096/2012 is pending in…
  • New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) vs. CCIT (Supreme Court) What she argued was that looking to the nature of the functions enjoined upon the appellant committee, it must be deemed to be a municipal committee within the meaning of that expression in clause (iii) of the Explanation. We regret our inability to accept that submission. We say so for…
  • New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) vs. ACIT (Supreme Court)(S. 194-I) (1) Amounts paid as part of the lease premium in terms of the time schedule (s) to the Lease Deeds executed between the petitioners and GNOIDA, or biannual or annual payments for a limited/specific period towards acquisition of lease hold rights are not subject to TDS, being capital payments; (2)…
  • Bhushan Steel vs. CIT (Supreme Court) Taxability of subsidies: Supreme Court stays judgement of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Bhushan Steels And Strips Ltd which held that if the recipient has the flexibility of using it for any purpose and is not confined to using it for capital purposes, the subsidy is revenue in…
  • PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court) The practice of conversion of un-accounted money through the cloak of Share Capital/Premium must be subjected to careful scrutiny. This would be particularly so in the case of private placement of shares, where a higher onus is required to be placed on the Assessee since the information is within the…
  • PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court) In State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nehata1 this Court held that : “A grant of power of attorney is essentially governed by Chapter X of the Contract Act. By reason of a deed of power of attorney, an agent is formally appointed to act for the principal in one transaction…

Related Judgements

  1. JCIT vs. United Phosphorus (Supreme Court) 

    The question as to whether the assessee had an option in law to claim partial depreciation in respect of any block of assets is remanded to the High Court to consider in the light of Mahendra Mills 243 ITR 56 … JCIT vs. United Phosphorus (Supreme Court) Read…
  2. DCIT vs. Core Health Care (Supreme Court) 

    (i) Interest paid in respect of borrowings on capital assets not put to use in the concerned financial year are deductible under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act; (ii) Interest on all moneys borrowed for the purposes of business are deductible … DCIT vs. Core Health Care (Supreme Court)…
  3. CIT vs. Bilahari Investments (Supreme Court) 

    In the case of a chit fund following the ‘completed contract method of accounting’ and offering income at the end of the chit, held, approving the method: (i) Recognition/identification of income under the Act is attainable by several methods of … CIT vs. Bilahari Investments (Supreme Court) Read…
  4. Kvaerner John Brown vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Jurisdiction u/s S. 143(1)(a) and 143 (1A) is confined to making “prima facie” adjustments. When there are conflicting judgments on interpretation of Section 80-O, it is not permissible to make “prima facie” adjustments u/s 143(1)(a) and consequently additional tax u/s 143(1A) is not payable.
    Read more ›
  5. R & B Falcon vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Transportation cost incurred by a foreign assessee in providing transportation facility for movement of offshore employees from their residence in home country to the place of work and back is liable to Fringe Benefit Tax u/s 115WA.
    Read more ›
0 comments on “Steel Authority vs. STO (Supreme Court)”
1 Pings/Trackbacks for "Steel Authority vs. STO (Supreme Court)"
  1. archives » Blog Archive » State of H.P. vs. Sardara Singh (Supreme Court) says:
    September 1, 2008 at 9:42 am

    […] Also: Steel Authority vs. STO (SC) and Mangat Ram vs. State (SC). Posted in All Judgements, Supreme Court […]