Services  |  Subscribe  |  Contact Us  |   Feedback   |  E-mail  |  News |  Home
JUDGMENTS
CENTRAL EXCISE
CUSTOMS
SERVICE TAX
INCOME TAX
VAT
FINANCE ACTS
FINANCE BILLS
EOU STPI
SEZ
DGFT
RBI
NTT
RESOURCES


    
Email | Print

Important Links         SC        HC        CESTAT        ITAT        AAR

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS 2013

AIT-2013-07-SC
Raunaq Education Foundation Vs. DIT,New Delhi

the respondent-assessee had, by way of donation, received two cheques for a sum of Rs.40 lac each from M/s Apollo Tyres Ltd. One of the cheques was dated 22nd April, 2002 and yet it was given in accounting year 2001-2002 i.e. before 31st March, 2002. The said cheque for donation was received by the respondent assessee before 31st March, 2002 but was honoured after 1st April, 2002 i.e. in accounting year 2002-2003

AIT-2013-13-SC
M/s A.R. Enterprises Vs. ACIT, Chennai

Larger Bench-Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in cancelling the assessment under Chapter XIV-B in light of the specific provision contained in Section 158BB(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act.

AIT-2013-14-SC
M/s I.C.D.S. Ltd. Vs. CIT,Mysore & Anr.

In its return of income for the relevant assessment years, the assessee claimed, among other heads, depreciation in relation to certain assets, (additions made to the trucks) which, as explained above, had been financed by the assessee but registered in the name of third parties. The assessee also claimed depreciation at a higher rate on the ground that the vehicles were used in the business of running on hire.

AIT-2013-15-SC
M/s Australian Foods India (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, Chennai

whether the manufacture and sale of specified goods that do not physically bear a brand name, from branded sale outlets, would disentitle an assessee from the benefit of S.S.I. Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28th February, 1993, as amended from time to time.

AIT-2013-16-SC
M/s. Bangalore ClubVs. CIT & Anr.

The Bangalore Club sought an exemption from payment of income tax on the interest earned on the fixed deposits kept with certain banks, which were corporate members of the assessee, on the basis of doctrine of mutuality. However, tax was paid on the interest earned on fixed deposits kept with non-member banks.

AIT-2013-17-SC
M/s. Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur

The show cause notice was issued on 02.08.2001, more than six months after the appellant had imported furnace oil on behalf of Uniworth Ltd. in January, 2001- The conclusion that mere non-payment of duties is equivalent to collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of facts is, in our opinion, untenable. If that were to be true, we fail to understand which form of non-payment would amount to ordinary default? Construing mere non-payment as any of the three categories contemplated by the proviso would leave no situation for which, a limitation period of six months may apply. In our opinion, the main body of the Section, in fact, contemplates ordinary default in payment of duties and leaves cases of collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of facts, a smaller, specific and more serious niche, to the proviso. Therefore, something more must be shown to construe the acts of the appellant as fit for the applicability of the proviso

AIT-2013-18-SC
Satya Nand Munjal Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax

assessee revoked the gift on 15th June 1988 with the result that the 6000 shares gifted to the transferee came back to the assessee. However, the 14,000 bonus shares allotted to the transferee while it was the holder of the equity shares of the company continued with the transferee. Gift Tax Officer held that the revocable transaction entered into by the assessee was only for the purpose of reducing the tax liability. As such, it could not be accepted as a valid gift.

AIT-2013-101-SC
Silver Oak Laboratories P. Ltd. Vs. CIT, Delhi

On examining the terms and conditions and also on examination of the invoices, purchase orders as well as the challans indicating payment of excise duty, we are of the view that there is no material on record to indicate that the transaction in question is a "contract for carrying out works". Hence, Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not attracted.

AIT-2013-128-SC
Ayyappan Textiles Ltd. Vs. CCE, Madurai

This is a typical case where at every stage of the litigation irrelevant legal principles were pressed into service resulting in colossal waste of time of adjudicators including time of this Court. - The Tribunal instead of deciding the correctness of such a conclusion went into the questions of law unwarranted by the facts of the case. Having regard to the paltry amount involved in the matter, the long and chequered history of the litigation and the resultant wastage of time of the various fora, coupled with the fact, the 1st appellate authority found some substance in the defence of the respondent, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment under appeal. The appeal is dismissed

AIT-2013-129-SC
Vijaybhai n. Chandrani Vs. CIT, Gujarat

at the said stage of issuance of the notices under Section 153C, the assessee could have addressed his grievances and explained his stand to the Assessing Authority by filing an appropriate reply to the said notices instead of filing the Writ Petition impugning the said notices. It is settled law that when an alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved party, it must exhaust the same before approaching the Writ Court

AIT-2013-139-SC
Chhabil Dass Agarwal Vs. CIT & Ors.

whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the order passed by the assessing authority under Section 148 of the Act in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 when an equally efficacious alternate remedy was available to the assessee under the Act.

AIT-2013-140-SC
M/s. Ciens Laboratories Vs. CCE, Mumbai

‘Care or cure’, is the clue for the resolution of the lis arising in these cases. If the product by name ‘Moisturex’ is held to be a medicament for cure, the decision goes in favour of the assessee and if the product is held to be one for care of the skin, the decision benefits the Central Excise.

AIT-2013-147-SC
M/s. Kay Kay Industries Vs. CCE, Jalandhar

there is no dispute that a declaration was given by the manufacturer of the inputs indicating that the excise duty had been paid on the said inputs under the Act. It is also not in dispute that the said inputs were directly received from the manufacturer but not purchased from the market. There is no cavil over the fact that the manufacturer of the inputs had declared the invoice price of the inputs correctly in the documents. It is perceivable from the factual matrix that the only allegation is that at the time of MODVAT verification it was found that the supplier of the inputs had not discharged full duty liable for the period covered under the invoices. This lapse of the seller is different and not a condition or rather a pre-condition postulated in the notification.

AIT-2013-153-SC
M/s. KCP Ltd.
Vs. CCE, Chennai

It is also not in dispute that the appellant had purchased some machinery from others and such machinery had not even been unpacked by it and in the exact condition it had been transported along with the machinery manufactured by it to Vietnam. Thus, the appellant did not use the purchased machinery in its premises or in its factory and therefore, necessary condition incorporated in the Rules for availing credit of the MODVAT had not been complied with. To avail the MODVAT credit, the input on which excise duty is paid must be used in the manufacture of the final product in the factory of the assessee. The machinery purchased by the appellant had not even been tested or was not even unwrapped in the factory of the appellant. In case of such an admitted fact, it cannot be said that the machinery so purchased from others was used by the appellant in the manufacture of the sugar plant

AIT-2013-165-SC
M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited & Anr.
Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Larger Bench: Whether taxing sale of goods in an agreement for sale of flat which is to be constructed by the developer/promoter is permissible under the  Constitution? When the  agreement between the promoter/developer and the  flat  purchaser is  to  construct  a  flat  and eventually sell the flat with the fraction of land, it is obvious that  such transaction involves the activity of construction inasmuch  as  it  is  only when the flat is constructed then it can be conveyed. We, therefore, think that there is no reason why such activity of construction is not covered by the term “works contract”. After all, the term “works contract” is nothing but a contract in which one of the parties is obliged  to undertake  or  to execute works. Such activity of construction has all the characteristics or elements of works contract.  The ultimate transaction between the parties may be sale of flat but it cannot be said that the characteristics of works contract are  not  involved  in  that  transaction.   When  the  transaction involves the activity of  construction, the  factors such  as,  the  flat purchaser has no control over the type and standard of the  material  to  be used in the construction of building or he  does  not  get  any  right  to monitor or supervise the construction activity or  he  has  no  say  in  the designing or lay-out  of  the building,  in  our  view,  are  not  of  much significance and in any case these  factors  do  not  detract  the  contract being works contract insofar as construction part is concerned.

AIT-2013-168-SC
Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals Vs. CIT, Gujarat

Larger Bench: whether interest is payable by the Revenue to the assessee if the aggregate of installments of Advance Tax OF TDS paid exceeds the assessed tax? - the aforesaid judgment has been misquoted and misinterpreted by the assessees and also by the Revenue. They are of the view that in Sandvik case (supra) this Court had directed the Revenue to pay interest on the statutory interest in case of delay in the payment. In other words, the interpretation placed is that the Revenue is obliged to pay an interest on interest in the event of its failure to refund the interest payable within the statutory period.

AIT-2013-172-SC
M/s Tata Sky Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and others

Service Tax: DTH broadcast is a “service” and it is chargeable to service tax. As a matter of fact, one of the several grounds on which the demand of entertainment tax by the State Government on DTH broadcasting is challenged by the appellant is that DTH broadcasting is one of the notified services under the Finance Act, 1994 and is chargeable to service tax by the Central Government - 1936 Act cannot be extended to cover DTH operations being carried out by the appellants.

AIT-2013-174-SC
M/s Excel Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT

Larger Bench: whether the benefit of an entitlement to make duty free imports of raw materials obtained by the assessee through advance licences and duty entitlement pass book issued against export obligations is income in the year in which the exports are made or in the year in which the duty free imports are made.

AIT-2013-186-SC
MAK Data P. Ltd. Vs. CIT

Assessee has only stated that he had surrendered the additional sum of Rs.40,74,000/- with a view to avoid litigation, buy peace and to channelize the energy and resources towards productive work and to make amicable settlement with the income tax department. Statute does not recognize those types of defences under the explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the Appellant-assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. The law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed income, he had to be absolved from penalty.

AIT-2013-193-SC
Kathiroor Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT & Ors.

by the impugned notice the assessing authority sought for information in respect of its customers which have cash transactions or deposits of Rs. 1,00,000/- or above for a period of three years, without reference to any proceeding or enquiry pending before any authority under the Act. Admittedly, in the present case notice was issued only after obtaining approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin. In light of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Authority has not erred in issuing the notice to the assessee-financial institution requiring it to furnish information regarding the account holder with cash transactions or deposits of more than Rs. 1,00,000/-

AIT-2013-205-SC
Chironjilal Sharma HUF Vs. Union of India and Others

Full Bench: In the search conducted in the house of the appellant on 31.1.1990, a cash amount of Rs. 2,35,000/- was recovered. On 31.5.1990, an order under Section 132(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 came to be passed. The AO calculated the tax liability and the cash seized in the search from the appellant's house was appropriated. However, the order of the AO was finally set-aside by the ITAT on 20.2.2004. The revenue accepted the order of the Tribunal. Consequently, the appellant has been refunded the amount of Rs. 2,35,000/- along with interest from 4.3.1994 (date of last of the regular assessments by the AO) until the date of refund.

AIT-2013-210-SC
Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Revenue had given 30 days’ time to return the said amount to the respondents who had wrongly availed MODVAT credit on the HSD oil used as an input. If anyone who had repaid the amount wrongly availed within 30 days from the date on which Section 112 of the 2000 Act got the President’s assent, that assessee had not to pay any interest on the amount of duty availed by him wrongly. But those who had availed the MODVAT credit on the HSD oil used as an input and did not return the said amount even within 30 days from the date on which the President had given assent to the enactment of Section 112 of the 2000 Act, had to return the amount wrongfully retained by them with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. In our opinion, such a course, adopted by the Revenue for recovery of the amount which was legitimately claimed by the Revenue, cannot be said to be bad in law

AIT-2013-211-SC
M/s Mastek Ltd. Vs. CIT, Gujarat

Full Bench: The High Court's power to frame substantial question(s) of law at the time of hearing of the appeal other than the questions on appeal has been admitted remains under Section 260A(4). This power is subject, however, to two conditions, (one) the Court must be satisfied that appeal involves such questions, and (two) the Court has to record reasons therefor.

 


HOME ¦ Judgment ¦ Central Excise ¦ Customs  ¦ Service Tax ¦ Income Tax ¦ VAT ¦ Finance Act ¦ Finance Bills ¦ EOU STPI ¦ SEZ ¦ DGFT ¦ RBI ¦ NTT ¦ Resources 

 

  Copyright © 2006 allindiantaxes.com | All rights reserved
website designing India & CMS development: Softlogics & Developments