S.43B: Deductions on actual payment – Leave encashment – Method of accounting -Section does not place any embargo upon the autonomy of the assessee in adopting a particular method of accounting, nor deprives the assessee of any lawful deduction. It merely imposes an additional condition of actual payment for the availment of deduction qua the specified head -Provision is not unconstitutional-Interpretation of taxing statutes – Legislature has larger discretion- Enactment invalidated by Court — Legislature free to diagnose law and alter invalid elements — Does not mean legislature declares opinion of court invalid. [ S. 37(1) 43B(f), 145 , Art . 14 ]
UOI v Exide Industries Ltd (2020) 425 ITR 1/ 189 DTR 62/ 315 CTR 62 / 273 Taxman 189 (SC) www.itatonline .org
Digest of case laws
Online digest of latest case laws
This Digest of case laws is prepared by KSA Legal and AIFTP from judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws S. 5 : Scope of total income – liaison office of the non-resident – A liaison office which is only carrying on such activity of a “preparatory or auxiliary” character is not a PE in terms of Article 5 of the DTAA. The deeming provisions in Sections 5 and 9 of the 1961 Act can have no bearing whatsoever- Not liable to tax in India- DTAA-India-UAE [ S. 2(24) , 4 , 9(1)(i) Art , 5 , 7 ]
UOI v. U.A E .Exchange Centre ( 2020) 425 ITR 30/ 315 CTR 129/ 273 Taxman 122 / 190 DTR 79 (SC) www.itatonline.org .S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Mutuality – Contributions both from members and non-members and one member was vested with powers to control functioning and interests of other members, such an assimilation could not be termed as a social intercourse devoid of commerciality- Assessee, being not a mutual concern, could not be entitled to tax exemption- Exemptions are to be put to strict interpretation- Principle of mutuality is held to be not applicable -Order of AO is affirmed .[ S .2 (24 ) ]
Yum! Restaurants (Marketing ) Pvt Ltd v CIT ( 2020) 424 ITR 630 / 189 DTR 1/ 313 CTR 37 / 271 Taxman 217 / 116 taxmann.com 374 (SC ) www.itatonline .org 116 taxmann.com 374 (SC ) www.itatonline .orgContempt Court Act , 1971 .
S.5: Fair criticism of judicial act not contempt -Contempt of Court by Advocates- It is obvious that this is a concerted effort to virtually hold the Judiciary to ransom- All three contemnors are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months each with a fine of Rs. 2000. [Advocate Act .1961 S.7(b) Constitution of India , 1949 Art , 129 142 ]
Contempt Court Act , 1971 .
S.5: Fair criticism of judicial act not contempt – No party has the right to attribute motives to a Judge or to question the bona fides of the Judge or to raise questions with regard to the competence of the Judge- Judges are part and parcel of the justice delivery system- When there is a concerted attack by members of the Bar, the Court cannot shut its eyes to the slanderous and scandalous allegations made. If such allegations are permitted to remain unchallenged then the public will lose faith not only in those particular Judges but also in the entire justice delivery system and this definitely affects the majesty of law. [ Advocate Act , 1961 , S.7 (b) , Constitution of India , 1949 Art , 129 142 ]
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
S.3 :Constructive delivery – Interpretation – legal fiction- The Tax Administration Authorities cannot give their own interpretation to legislative provisions on the basis of their own perception of trade practice. This administrative exercise, in effect, would result in supplying words to legislative provisions, as if to cure omissions of the legislature. [ S.6 ]
Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005
S.21 : Assessment – Alternative remedy -Limitation – Power of Supreme Court & High Court under Articles 142 and 226 to entertain a challenge to the assessment order on the sole ground that the statutory remedy of appeal against that order stands foreclosed by the law of limitation. [ S.31 , Constitution of India 1949 , Art . 142, 226 , ]
ACCT v Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd . AIR 2020 SC 2815; Manu/SC/0434 /2020 (SC) www.itatonline.orgConstitution of India , 1949
Art. 362 : Corona Virus Lockdown Crisis- Extension of interim orders – All interim orders operating till today and are not already continued by some other courts / authority including this court shall remain in force till 30.04.2020 subject to liberty to parties to move for vacation of interim orders only in extreme urgent cases. [ Art . 226 ,227 ]
In Re: Extension of Interim Orders MANU/MH/0508/2020 (FB )(Bom)( Bom) (HC ) www.itatonline .orgConstitution of India 1949
Art .142 : Guidelines for Court functioning through video conferencing during covid-19 pandemic [ Art .141 ]
Constitution of India , 1949
Art. 141:Corona Virus (COVID 19) -Extension of limitation period- All periods of limitation prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 shall be extended with effect from 15.03.2020 till further orders to be passed by this Court in the present proceedings. [ Art . 142 ]
In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation ( 2020) 220 Comp Cas 454 (SC) ; MANU/SC/ 0501/2020 ; www.itatonline .org