Category: 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

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…

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’.

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…

Third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act will now be read without the word “even” and the words “is not” after the words “delay in disposing of the appeal” – Any order of stay shall stand vacated after the expiry of the period or periods mentioned in the Section only if the delay in disposing of the appeal is attributable to the assessee.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S. PEPSI FOODS LTD. (NOW PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.) — Respondent ( Before…

Deduction – Co-operative Societies – Limited object of section 80P(4) is to exclude co-operative banks that function at par with other commercial banks HELD the primary object of which is to provide financial accommodation to its members for agricultural purposes or for purposes connected with agricultural activities.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE MAVILAYI SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALICUT AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R.…

I Tax Act, 1961 – S 40(a)(iib) – CoI, 1950 – Art 226 – VAT expenditure is not allowable as deduction – When the vires of S 40(a)(iib) of the I T Act were challenged, which can be decided by the High Court alone in exercise of powers under Art 226, the H C ought to have decided the issue with regard to vires of S 40(a)(iib) on merits, irrespective of the fact whether the matter was sub judice before the Income Tax Authority

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S TAMIL NADU STATE MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash…

Advance Tax Ruling System – Aim of any properly framed advance ruling system ought to be a dialogue between taxpayers and revenue authorities to fulfil the mutually beneficial purpose for taxpayers and revenue authorities HELD Swedish model and the New Zealand system may be a possible way forward.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-V — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Indu Malhotra,…

Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 – Sections 21AA and 167A – Club Rules – Rule 35 – Liability to pay Wealth Tax – Section 21AA does not enlarge the field of tax payers but only plugs evasion -applying the ratio of CWT v. Trustees of H.E.H. Nizam’s Family 108 ITR 555 (1977), HELD club members fixed body as on the date of liquidation. Appeal allowed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S BANGALORE CLUB — Appellant Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX AND ANOTHER — RespondentS ( Before : R. F. Nariman, Navin Sinha…

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 45 – Capital gain – Assessment year 1975-1976 – Capital gains arising out of land acquisition compensation were chargeable to income-tax under Section 45 of the Act of 1961 for the previous year referable to the date of award of compensation i.e., 29.09.1970 and not the date of notification for acquisition.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAJ PAL SINGH — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HARYANA, ROHTAK — Respondent ( Before : A.M.Khanwilkar, Hemant Gupta and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.…

You missed

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.