Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws Interpretation of taxing statutes-Judgements to be read .
Art : 141:Precedent – The judgment must be read as a whole and the observations from the judgment have to be considered in the light of the questions which were before this Court- Reassessment [ Income -tax Act ,1961 ,S.147 , 148 ]
CIT v Sun Enginering Works (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC)Interpretation of taxing statutes-Judgements to be read ..
Art : 141:Precedent – What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically flows from the various observations made in the judgement- Observations of courts are neither to be read as Euclid’s Theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context.
Indian Evidence Act , 1872 .
S. 92 : Documents- construction- Interpretation of document – A document must primarily be construed on the basis of the terms and conditions contained therein- It is also trite that while construing a document the court shall not apply any words which the author thereof did not use. [S.91 ,Indian Contract Act ,1872, S. 124 ]
State Bank of India & Anr v Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. AIR 2007 SC 2361Indian Succession Act, 1925
S.63:Requirement of a valid will – The attesting witness should speak not only about the testators signature or affixing his mark to the will but also that each of the witnesses had signed the will in the presence of the testator.
Indian Evidence Act 1872.
S.34: Books of Accounts – Entries in Loose papers – Incriminating materials seized in raids conducted on industries – Not maintained in the regular course of business – Not Admissible [Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974), S. 156 Income -tax Act 1961 S. 2(13) ].
Common Cause (A Registered Society) and Ors. v. UOI AIR (2017) 394 ITR 220 / 245 Taxman 214 (SC)/ (2017) 11 SCC 731 / 2017 SUPREME COURT 540Indian Evidence Act 1872.
S.56: Evidence – Subsequent Events during litigation – Having direct bearing on the issue can be considered by the Court even if it is produced for the first time. [ Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 ,S. 36 ]
Dinshaw Rusi Mehta v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2017 Supreme Court 1557S.91: Agreement of sale fixing a specific amount as price-On money- Builders- A mere suspicion on the builders that they accepted sale amount in cash could not be accepted. [ S.92 ]
Bhandari Construction Co. v. Narayan Gopal Upadhye (2007) 3 SCC 163S. 271AAA : Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007–Previous year ended before date of search and the date of filing pf return of income u/s. 139(1) had also been expired–Penalty cannot be levied. [S. 139(1)]
S & P Foundations (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 186 DTR 122 / 203 TTJ 650(Chennai) (Trib.)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Charitable Trust–Donation-Details of the persons from whom the donations were received could not be furnished–Levy of penalty is held to be not valid. [S. 11]
Meenakshi Ammal Trust v. ACIT (2020) 186 DTR 257 / 78 ITR 138 / 203 TTJ 785 (Chennai)(Trib.)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Addition on estimate basis– Levy of penalty is held to be not justified-Un accounted cash transaction-Levy of penalty is held to be justified–Disallowances u/s.40(a)(ia)–Levy of penalty is held to be justified. [S. 40(a)(ia), 153A]
S & P Foundations (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 186 DTR 122/ 203 TTJ 650 (Chennai) (Trib.)