-
Supreme Court excludes the period starting from 15-3-2020 till 28-2-2022 from limitation period of all judicial proceedings before the Courts/Tribunals. all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 1-3-2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
-
Section 40(a)(ia), 194C: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA held on Jul 29, 2020 that the provisions of Section 194C were indeed applicable and the assessee-appellant was under obligation to deduct the tax at source in relation to the payments made by it for hiring the vehicles for the purpose of its business of transportation of goods. Against the assessee.SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT COMPANY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
-
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA on 5th June, 2020 held that the taxing statutes are subject to the rule of strict interpretation, and the benefit of ambiguity in case of an exemption notification or an exemption clause must go in favour of the revenue; and the same principles would apply in relation to Section 80-O of the Act. Constitution Bench decision in Dilip Kumar & Co. (supra), RAMNATH & CO. Vs CIT.
-
Section 153C- Supreme Court of India on on 5 March, 2020 Before issuing notice under Section 153C of the Act, the Assessing Officer of the searched person must be “satisfied” that, inter alia, any document seized or requisitioned “belongs to” a person other than the searched person. If the satisfaction note recorded under Section 153C of the Act in respect of the assessee, i.e., a third party, hold invalid entire proceedings taken there under is null and void. However, in the case where the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the other person is the same, it is sufficient by the Assessing Officer to note in the satisfaction note that the documents seized from the searched person belonged to the other person i.e; the assessee. In the case of M/S. Super Malls Private Limited. vs PCIT. AY 2008-09
-
Decision SUPREME COURT OF INDIA on MAY 13, 2020 on the issue when original evidence is not available. JAGMAIL SINGH & ANR. V KARAMJIT SINGH & ORS.
-
Kindly note Supreme Court in Vodafone Idea on 29th April 2020 held that there is assessment year wise regime in processing of refund u/s 143(1)
-
Supreme court on 24th April, 2020 held that clause (f) in Section 43B of the 1961 Act is constitutionally valid and therefore any sum payable by the assessee as an employer in lieu of any leave at the credit of his employee is allowable only on actual payment. Division Bench of High Court at Calcutta order is reversed.
-
Supreme Court on 24.4.2020 held that no addition u/s 68 can be allowed when the CIT Appeal deleted the penalty on the same credit entry on the ground that the assessee establish the credentials. High Court also held that when the books of accounts rejected for GP addition purpose, but then, if those books of accounts did disclose certain other assets, which are wrongly shown to be liabilities, and for acquisition of which the assessee did not show the source, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer was not entitled to use the books of accounts for this purpose. Basir Ahmed Sisodiya Vs. ITO
-
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA on Mar 19, 2020 held that Section 143(1-A) can only be invoked when the revenue discharged the burden of proving that the assessee has attempted to evade tax which may be discharged by the Revenue by establishing facts and circumstances from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the assessee has, in fact, attempted to evade tax lawfully payable by it. Hence the Ld. AO cannot mechanically apply the provisions of Section 143(1-A) after issuing intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
-
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA hold on 6th March, 2020 that it is trite law that, unless there is preference given to the Crown debt by a statute, the dues of a secured creditor have preference over Crown debts. When the sale of the property was pursuant to the order passed by the DRT with regard to the property over which a charge was already created prior to the issuance of notice by the income tax department on 11.02.2003, the dues of a secured creditor have preference over Crown debts. In the case of Connectwell Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Supreme Court)