Supreme Court of India Judgements

46880 Judgements hosted as on 02/10/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Direct Taxation

Direct Taxation Income Tax

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 276C(1) — Wilful attempt to evade tax — Prosecution for wilful attempt to evade tax requires proof of mens rea — Settlement Commission granted immunity from penalty after full disclosure, finding no suppression of facts or wilful evasion — Continuation of prosecution despite settlement order and lack of mens rea amounts to abuse of process of law.

Aug 31, 2025 sclaw

025 INSC 1048 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIJAY KRISHNASWAMI @ KRISHNASWAMI VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi,…

Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

DTAA, India-UAE, Article 5(1) — Permanent Establishment — Definition of “fixed place of business” — The definition of Permanent Establishment requires a fixed place of business through which the business of an enterprise is wholly or partly carried on. The key test is whether the place is “at the disposal” of the enterprise, meaning the enterprise has the right to use the premises to carry on its business. Factors like stability, productivity, and a degree of independence are also considered.

Jul 28, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 891 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD. Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ. )…

Direct Taxation Income Tax

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 139(5) — Revised Income Tax Return — The appellant filed multiple revised returns for the assessment year 1989-90, which were not considered due to being barred by limitation —Whether the assessing officer can consider claims made in a revised return filed after the time limit prescribed by Section 139(5) of the Act — The appellant argued that the assessing officer should consider the claim for deduction of deferred revenue expenditure, even if the revised return was filed late —The respondent contended that the assessing officer has no jurisdiction to consider claims made in a time-barred revised return —The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision that the assessing officer cannot consider claims in a time-barred revised return —The Court emphasized that the assessing officer’s jurisdiction is limited by the time constraints set in Section 139(5) —The Court referred to previous judgments, including Wipro Finance Ltd. and Goetze (India) Ltd., to support its decision —The appeal was dismissed, affirming that claims in a time-barred revised return cannot be considered by the assessing officer.

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 760 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS — Appellant Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, CHENNAI — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S Oka…

Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 17(2)(viii) – Income Tax Rules, 1962 – Rule 3(7)(i) – The appeals involve challenges to the vires of Section 17(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act and Rule 3(7)(i) of the Income Tax Rules, concerning the taxation of perquisites in the form of interest-free/concessional loans to bank employees – The primary issues are whether these provisions result in excessive delegation of legislative function to the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and if Rule 3(7)(i) is arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution by using the State Bank of India’s Prime Lending Rate as a benchmark – The Court reasoned that the legislative policy and standards are sufficiently clear in the primary legislation, and the rule-making authority’s actions fall within the permissible parameters of delegation – The Court found that the provisions align with the common understanding of ‘perquisites’ and ‘fringe benefits’ and that the use of SBI’s rate promotes tax efficiency and certainty – The Supreme Court concluded that Section 17(2)(viii) and Rule 3(7)(i) are intra vires and do not lead to excessive delegation or violate constitutional principles – The judgment emphasizes the importance of clarity, consistency, and fairness in tax legislation.

May 12, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 389 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALL INDIA BANK OFFICERS’ CONFEDERATION — Appellant Vs. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjiv…

Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 32(1) – Income Tax Rules, 1962 – Rule 5(1A) – There is no requirement under the second proviso to sub-rule (1A) of Rule 5 of the Rules that any particular mode of computing the claim of depreciation has to be opted for before the due date of filing of the return

Dec 10, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX — Appellant Vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR — Respondent ( Before : B. V.…

Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 80HHC – Claim for deduction -The assessee’s attempt to broaden the deduction sources is considered impermissible, as strict interpretation aligns with specific terms in Section 80HHC – Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 80HHC emphasize that deductions are intended exclusively for profits derived from exporting goods and merchandise outside India, and including other income contradicts the section’s intended scope and purpose – Appeal Dismissed

Nov 25, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHAH ORIGINALS — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-24, MUMBAI — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 90 – A notification under Section 90(1) is necessary and a mandatory condition for a court, authority, or tribunal to give effect to a Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), or any protocol changing its terms or conditions, which has the effect of altering the existing provisions of law – The interpretation of the expression “is” has present signification. Therefore, for a party to claim benefit of a “same treatment” clause, based on entry of DTAA between India and another state which is member of OECD, the relevant date is entering into treaty with India, and not a later date, when, after entering into DTAA with India, such country becomes an OECD member, in terms of India’s practice.

Oct 24, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASSESSING OFFICER CIRCLE (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 2(2)(2) NEW DELHI — Appellant Vs. M/S NESTLE SA — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar…

Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 35ABB – Expenditure for obtaining licence to operate telecommunication services – Payment of entry fee as well as the variable annual licence fee paid by the respondents-assessees to the DoT under the Policy of 1999 are capital in nature and may be amortised in accordance with Section 35ABB of the Act – Consequence of non-payment would result in ouster of the licensee from the trade – Thus, this is a payment which is intrinsic to the existence of the licence as well as trade itself. Such a payment has to be treated or characterized as capital only.

Oct 18, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH C.I.T., DELHI — Appellant Vs. BHARTI HEXACOM LTD. — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(S). 11128,…

You missed

Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Sections 138, 139, 118 — Dishonour of cheque — Presumptions — Scope — Once execution/signature admitted, presumption arises that cheque was for consideration and discharge of legally enforceable debt — Burden initially on accused to rebut by raising probable defence — Mere plea of complainant’s financial incapacity, without documentary or independent evidence, not sufficient — Failure to reply to statutory notice, an adverse inference against accused — Defence that blank signed cheque given for obtaining bank loan, held unbelievable.

Oct 2, 2025 sclaw
Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 and 37 — Setting aside of arbitral award — Scope of interference — Courts are prohibited from rewriting contracts and should not interfere with arbitral awards unless grounds under Section 34 are met, such as violation of public policy or patent illegality. Interference is justified when an award shocks the conscience or is contrary to basic notions of justice. The scope of appeal under Section 37 is narrower than Section 34.

Oct 2, 2025 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 — Murder — Conversion of conviction — Where evidence shows that though accused had knowledge that injuries would cause death, there is no material to prove intention to kill, conviction under Section 302 IPC is not tenable and should be converted to Section 304 Part I IPC.

Oct 2, 2025 sclaw
Acquittal

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 374(2) — Appeals against conviction — High Court’s power to acquit — High Court, after considering evidence and finding patent infirmities and insufficiency of evidence in the prosecution case, rightly acquitted the accused giving them the benefit of doubt.- Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 65-B — Electronic records — Call detail records — Non-production of certificate under Section 65-B along with call detail records renders them inadmissible — Handwritten notes of call details without examining the scribe are not proved according to law.

Oct 2, 2025 sclaw