Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Direct Taxation

Direct Taxation

Finance Act, 1994 – Section 66(B) – Exemption from service tax – Services provided in the nature of contract labour not job work – On reading the agreement as a whole, it is apparent that the contract is pure and simple a contract for the provision of contract labour – Appeal dismissed.

Feb 27, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ADIRAJ MANPOWER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE PUNE II — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and…

Direct Taxation

It is settled principle of interpretation that where the same Statute, uses different terms and expressions, then it is clear that Legislature is referring to distinct and different things. the assessments completed against the assessee with respect to assessment years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 stand set aside. The assessing officer to pass revised orders after computing the liability in accordance with the directions as indicated

Jan 3, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KERALA STATE BEVERAGES MANUFACTURING & MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) — Respondent ( Before :…

Direct Taxation

Powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to correct and/or rectify the mistake apparent from the record and not beyond that – If the order passed by the ITAT was erroneous on merits, in that case, the remedy available to the Assessee was to prefer an appeal before the High Court, which in fact was filed by the Assessee before the High Court, but later on the Assessee withdrew the same in the instant case – Impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court as well as the common order passed by the ITAT recalling its earlier order deserve to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside.

Dec 11, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT-4), MUMBAI — Appellant Vs. M/S RELIANCE TELECOM LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Direct Taxation

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Ss 143(3), 263 and 263(2) – Assessment – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Receipt of the order passed under Section 263 by the assessee has no relevance for the purpose of counting the period of limitation – The order was made/passed by the learned Commissioner on 26.03.2012 and it was dispatched on 28.03.2012. The relevant last date for the purpose of passing the order under Section 263 considering the fact that the assessment was for the financial year 2008­09 would be 31.03.2012 and the order might have been received as per the case of the assessee. Wrongly held passed by the learned Commissioner was barred by period of limitation

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI — Appellant Vs. MOHAMMED MEERAN SHAHUL HAMEED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.…

Direct Taxation

The subject-matter of the aforementioned Appeals is the judgement of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 07.11.2013 as well as a subsequent decision of the Delhi High Court dated 08.09.2014, which ruled on the issue of interest under Section 234B in favour of the Revenue, relying on the Division Bench judgement dated 07.11.2013. The point that arises for consideration in these Appeals is covered by our judgement in Civil Appeal No. 1262 of 2016.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI — Appellant Vs. M/S. MITSUBISHI CORPORATION — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.…

Direct Taxation

Whether proportionate disallowance of interest paid by the banks is called for under Section 14A of Income Tax Act- Proportionate disallowance of interest is not warranted, under Section 14A of Income Tax Act for investments made in tax free bonds/ securities which yield tax free dividend and interest to Assessee Banks in those situations where, interest free own funds available with the Assessee, exceeded their investments.

Sep 18, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

Direct Taxation

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 43B Explanation 3C – Explanation 3C, which was introduced for the “removal of doubts” , only made it clear that interest that remained unpaid and has been converted into a loan or borrowing shall not be deemed to have been actually paid

Aug 14, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M.M. AQUA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-III — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

Direct Taxation

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Bogus donation – Cancellation of Trust Registration – HELD Donations were received by way of cheques out of which substantial money was ploughed back or returned to the donors in cash – The facts thus clearly show that those were bogus donations

Aug 7, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA — Appellant Vs. BATANAGAR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH TRUST — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay…

Direct Taxation

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 80-IA(5) – is limited to determination of quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) of Section 80-IA of the Act by treating ‘eligible business’ as the ‘only source of income’ – Sub-section (5) cannot be pressed into service for reading a limitation of the deduction under sub-section (1) only to ‘business income’.

May 2, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I — Appellant Vs. M/S. RELIANCE ENERGY LIMITED (FORMERLY BSES LIMITED) THROUGH ITS M.D — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara…

You missed

State Laws

Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 – The case involves the acceptance of Change Reports for the Vahiwatdar (Administrator) and Trustees of Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, a Public Trust – The High Court invalidated the acceptance and remanded the matters for reconsideration – The main issue was the delay in filing the Change Report for the new Vahiwatdar of the Trust, which was submitted 17 years after the previous Vahiwatdar’s death – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, confirming the acceptance of Change Report Nos. 899 of 2015 and 1177 of 2017, allowing the civil appeals – The Court found that the delay in filing the Change Report was a curable defect and did not impact the legitimacy of the new Vahiwatdar’s assumption of office – The Court emphasized a liberal approach to condonation of delay, citing precedents.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
Service

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 – Sections 7, 8 and 9 – Procedure for resignation by employees of private schools – The appellant challenged his termination from, which was set aside by the Tribunal but reinstated by the High Court – The main issues were whether the appellant’s resignation was lawfully withdrawn and if the documents related to his resignation were fabricated – The appellant argued that his resignation withdrawal was not considered and that the school committee’s resolutions were fabricated – The respondents contended that the resignation was accepted by the management committee and the school committee, and the appellant was informed accordingly – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the appeal and affirming that the appellant’s resignation was voluntary and lawfully accepted – The Court found no evidence of fabricated documents and determined that the management committee’s acceptance of the resignation was valid – The Court referenced the MEPS Act and Rules, concluding that non-communication of resignation acceptance does not invalidate the termination – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant’s resignation was accepted before his attempted withdrawal, and thus the termination was lawful.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 5(7) – “financial creditor” – The appeals challenge judgments related to the status of certain creditors of M/s. Mount Shivalik Industries Limited under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – The primary issue is whether the respondents are financial creditors or operational creditors within the meaning of the IBC – The appellants argue that the respondents are operational creditors, as the agreements indicate services rendered to promote the corporate debtor’s products – The respondents contend that the agreements were a means to raise finance, making them financial creditors due to the interest-bearing security deposits – The Court upheld the NCLAT’s decision, recognizing the respondents as financial creditors based on the commercial effect of the transactions – The Court examined the true nature of the transactions and found that the arrangements had the commercial effect of borrowing, satisfying the criteria for financial debt under the IBC – The Court applied the definition of financial debt and operational debt from the IBC, emphasizing the disbursal against the consideration for the time value of money – The appeals were dismissed, confirming the respondents’ status as financial creditors and allowing the resolution process to continue accordingly – The Court’s detailed analysis affirmed the NCLAT’s interpretation of the IBC provisions.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
Family Court I P C

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw