Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Direct Taxation

Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Sections 50C and 143(3) – ITAT has without examining any of the relevant factors confirmed that the transaction was transfer of stock in trade – Matter is required to be remanded to the ITAT to consider the appeal afresh in light of the observations to take into consideration the relevant factors while considering the transaction as stock in trade or as sale of capital assets or business transaction.

May 9, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8 MUMBAI — Appellant Vs. GLOWSHINE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V.…

Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

Income Tax, Act, 1961 – Section 245D(4) – Powers and Procedure of Settelement Commission – It was not practicable for the Commission to examine the records and investigate the case for proper Settlement and even giving adequate opportunity to the applicant and the Department, as laid down in Section 245D(4) of the Act is not practicable.

May 7, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAGDISH TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.…

Direct Taxation G S T

HELD that if there is any tax concession, it “can be withdrawn at any time and no time limit should be insisted upon before it was withdrawn” – the respondents shall approach the jurisdictional commissioner, and apply with documentary evidence within six weeks from the date of this judgment. The claim for refund/credit, shall be examined on their merits,

May 7, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. COSMO FILMS LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ. )…

Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Sections 143(1)(a) and 143(3) – Jurisdiction of AO to assess or reassess the ‘total income’ – Once during search undisclosed income is found on unearthing the incriminating material during the search, the AO would assume jurisdiction to assess or reassess the total income even in case of completed/unabated assessments.

Apr 30, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-3 — Appellant Vs. ABHISAR BUILDWELL P. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.…

Direct Taxation Income Tax

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Sections 143(1)(a) and 143(3) – Jurisdiction of AO to assess or reassess the ‘total income’ – Once during search undisclosed income is found on unearthing the incriminating material during the search, the AO would assume jurisdiction to assess or reassess the total income even in case of completed/unabated assessments.

Apr 28, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-3 — Appellant Vs. ABHISAR BUILDWELL P. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.…

Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 260A – Determination of arm’s length price – there cannot be any absolute proposition of law that in all cases where the Tribunal has determined the arm’s length price the same is final and cannot be the subject matter of scrutiny by the High Court in an appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act

Apr 23, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 6, BANGALORE — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh,…

You missed

I P C

“Supreme Court Overturns Lower Courts, Orders Trial for Alleged Marriage Fraud and Conspiracy (IPC Sections 420 & 120-B)” Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420 read with Section 120-B – The appellant challenged lower courts’ orders regarding the summoning of respondents for alleged dishonest inducement in a marriage – The appellant claimed he was deceived into marrying a married respondent and that all respondents conspired to induce him into marriage and leave him with a significant sum of money – The respondents argued that there was no concealment or cheating, as all facts were disclosed to the appellant from the beginning – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court and Sessions Court, and restored the Magistrate’s order for the respondents to face trial – The court found that a prima facie case was made out for issuing process against the respondents, and the lower courts’ approach was not legally sustainable – The court concluded that the respondents should face trial for the alleged offences, and the case will be decided on its merits based on the evidence presented by the parties.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Specific Relief Act

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 6 – Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property – The appellants, owner of the property, allegedly evicted the respondent illegally and by force – The main issue was the maintainability of the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the illegal dispossession – The appellants contended voluntary handover of possession and challenged the maintainability of the suit – The respondent filed a suit within six months of dispossession under Section 6 of the Act – The Trial Court decreed in favor of the respondent, and the High Court dismissed the appellant’s revision – The High Court concurred with the Trial Court on the illegal dispossession and maintainability of the suit – The appeal was dismissed based on concurrent findings and evidence on record – The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
I P C

“Conspiracy Theory Revived: Supreme Court Orders Trial in Forged Documents Case Involving Government Land” Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A), 120(B) and 34 – The case involves allegations of a conspiracy to illegally transfer government land using forged documents – The respondents, along with others, are accused of manipulating judicial processes and revenue records to acquire government lands – The primary issue is whether the High Court was correct in quashing the order taking cognizance against the respondents, given the evidence of a conspiracy and manipulation of documents – The State argues that the High Court overlooked circumstantial evidence of a broader conspiracy and failed to appreciate the severity of the offences, which could undermine public trust in land administration – The respondents challenged the order of cognizance, arguing insufficient evidence directly implicating them in the conspiracy – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and directed the trial to proceed against the respondents – The Court found that the High Court’s decision was based on an incomplete assessment of facts and that a detailed trial is necessary to fully unravel the extent of the alleged conspiracy – The Court emphasized the need for a thorough examination of evidence and witnesses by the Trial Court to determine the actual harm caused to the public exchequer – The Supreme Court concluded that the case should not be dismissed at the preliminary stage and must be examined judiciously in a trial setting to ensure the integrity of ongoing investigations and judicial processes.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Customs & Excise

“Central Excise Dispute: Fresh Start Ordered! Court Remands Case for Tribunal to Reassess Impact of Missing Letter on Show Cause Notices” Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 35C (2) – Orders of Appellate Tribunal – The appellant, M/S Madura Coats is involved in a legal dispute with the Commissioner of Central Excise regarding the clearance of goods without payment of duty – The case involves multiple orders and appeals, with the primary contention being the non-furnishing of a crucial letter dated 20.01.2001 – The main issue is whether the non-furnishing of the letter dated 20.01.2001 has caused prejudice to the appellant’s ability to respond to the show cause notices effectively – The appellant contends that the final order by the tribunal, which directed the respondent to furnish the letter dated 20.01.2001, is binding and its non-compliance should result in the appeals being allowed – The respondent argues that the letter dated 20.01.2001 is the appellant’s own document and its absence does not prejudice the appellant’s case – They also assert that the appellant has been delaying the adjudication process – The court affirmed the High Court’s decision to remand the matter back to the tribunal for fresh adjudication of the show cause notices, subject to the appellant demonstrating how the non-furnishing of the letter has caused prejudice – The court reasoned that the letter dated 20.01.2001 was not relied upon adversely against the appellant and that the appellant should have retained a copy of their own document – The court found that the non-furnishing of the letter did not violate principles of natural justice as it was not used to draw adverse inferences against the appellant – The appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs, and the matter was remanded back to the tribunal for fresh adjudication, with the appellant’s contentions kept open

May 5, 2024 sclaw