INCOME TAX MATTERS ( A monthly journal on - Income tax and wealth tax- since 1999) - ( subscription for the year 2009 (TWO VOLUMES) is only Rs. 1300/-) - For subcription and to Know more click here

 

Judgements relating to Income Tax

 

SUPREME COURT - CIT Vs. J.K. Charitable Trust - November 7, 2008

Revenue cannot be precluded from filing an appeal even though in respect of some other years involving identical dispute no appeal is filed. - TO SEE FULL TEXT CLICK HERE

 

SUPREME COURT Union of india - versus - Dharamendra Textile Processors - September 29, 2008

In Union Budget of 1996-97, Section 11AC of the Act was introduced. It has made the position clear that there is no scope for any discretion. In para 136 of the Union Budget reference has been made to the provision stating that the levy of penalty is a mandatory penalty. In the Notes on Clauses also the similar indication has been given. - TO SEE FULL TEXT CLICK HERE

 

SUPREME COURT - Commissioner of Central Excise -Versus M/s Ratan Melting & Wire Industries - October 14, 2008

Circulars and instructions issued by the Board are no doubt binding in law on the authorities under the respective statutes, but when the Supreme Court or the High Court declares the law on the question arising for consideration, it would not be appropriate for the Court to direct that the circular should be given effect to and not the view expressed in a decision of this Court or the High Court. So far as the clarifications/circulars issuedby the Central Government and of the State Government are concerned they representmerely their understanding of the statutory provisions. They are not binding upon thecourt. It is for the Court to declare what the particular provision of statute says and it isnot for the Executive. Looked at from another angle, a circular which is contrary to thestatutory provisions has really no existence in law. - - TO SEE FULL TEXT CLICK HERE

I

SUPREME COURT - Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Sarabhai Holdings Pvt. Ltd - October 21, 2008

In the commercial world, the parties are always free to vary the terms of contract. Merely because by Resolution dt. 30.6.1978, the assessee agreed to defer the payment of interest, would not mean that it tried to evade the tax. What is material in the tax jurisprudence is the evasion of the tax, not the beneficial lawful adjustment therefor. - TO SEE FULL TEXT CLICK HERE

 

SUPREME COURT- B.M. MALANI Versus CIT dated 1-10-08 -

A genuine hardship would, inter alia, mean a genuine difficulty, that per se would not lead to a conclusion that a person having large assets would never be in difficulty as he can sell those assets and pay the amount of interest levied.- TO SEE FULL TEXT CLICK HERE

 

SUPREME COURT- CIT -IV, Delhi versus M/s HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd.- dated September 23, 2008. -

For the purposes of Section 115JA, AO has to accept the authenticity of the accounts aintained in accordance with the provisions of Part II and Part III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, which are certified by the Auditors and pressed by the company in the general meeting.- published at 12 ITM 425. - TO SEE FULL TEXT CLICK HERE

 

SUPREME COURT - CIT, Madras versus Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd - dated September 16, 2008.

If the object of the subsidy scheme was to enable the assessee to run the business more profitably then the receipt is on revenue account. On the other hand, if the object of the assistance under the subsidy scheme was to enable the assessee to set up a new unit or to expand the existing unit then the receipt of the subsidy was on capital account. - TO SEE FULL TEXT CLICK HERE

----------------------------------------------