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
GST


    
Email | Print

Important Links         SC        HC  CESTAT  ITAT  AAR

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS 2016

AIT-2016-04-SC
M/s Ganpathy & Co. Vs. CIT, Bangalore

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the disallowance of service charges paid to M/s Universal Trading Company made under Section 40A(2)? -Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the loss shown by the assessee in the film business amounting to Rs.31,48,670/- was allowable? -Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 35(2A) in respect of donation to Aparna Ashram?”

AIT-2016-05-SC
Hindustan National Glass and Industries Limited Vs. CCE, Pune

the manufacturing company was not adding the additional consideration received from the customers in the form of advance and, therefore, the notional interest accrued thereon is to be added to the sale price, for such non-addition had resulted in depression of the assessable value of the goods, namely, the bottles manufactured

AIT-2016-12-SC
M/s. Micro Labs Ltd.Vs. ACIT, Bangalore

the Assessee who had claimed and had been allowed deductions in respect of profits under Section 80-IB, could not have been allowed deductions in respect of the same profits under Section 80HHC of the Act. 

AIT-2016-20-SC
Society for the Prown of Edn Vs. CIT, Kanpur

deemed registration of an application under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act. The High Court has taken the view that once an application is made under the said provision and in case the same is not responded to within six months, it would be taken that the application is registered under the provision.

AIT-2016-23-SC
M/s. Shreyans Indus. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab General Sales Tax Act,1948-In the context of the Punjab Act, it can be said that extension of time for assessment has the effect of enlarging the period of limitation and, therefore, once the period of limitation expires, the immunity against being subject to assessment sets in and the right to make assessment gets extinguished.

AIT-2016-24-SC
M/s. Electro Optics (P) Ltd. VS. State of Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959-whether on account of being electronic survey instruments the goods would be out of Entry 14 so as to fall under Entry 50. The High Court and all the authorities have taken a consistent view that Entry 50 itself clarifies that it covers all electronic instruments, apparatus, other than those specified elsewhere in the Schedule and since the goods in question are specified under the generic term ‘survey instruments’ in Part F Entry 14, they will stand excluded from Entry 50 of Part B

AIT-2016-29-SC
M/s. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. Vs. CIT
Deduction of Transport Subsidy, Interest Subsidy, Power Subsidy-This group of appeals arises from the State of Meghalaya and concerns deductions to be made under Sections 80-IB and 80-IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
AIT-2016-33-SC
M/s. CASIO India Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana

Rule 28A(4)(c) supports the interpretation and does not counter it. The said rule exempts all intra-state sales including subsequent sales. The reason for enacting this clause is obvious. The intention is to exempt all subsequent stages in the State of Haryana and the eligible product can be sold a number of times, without payment of tax.

AIT-2016-34-SC
M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Indore

The respondents-assessees are manufacturers of dissolved and compressed industrial gases and allied products. These gases are transported and supplied to the customers in tonners, cylinders, carboys, paper cones and HDPE bags, BIBs, pipeline and canisters, which may be more conveniently referred to as Containers. Some container items are provided by the assessees and in some instances the customers bring their own cylinders/containers. For providing the containers, the assessees charge the customers certain amounts under different heads. These amounts are not reflected in the sale invoices for the purpose of computation of assessable value. The assessees treat the said amounts as their income from ancillary or allied ventures

AIT-2016-38-SC
M/s. ABB Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Delhi Value Added Tax

the inter-State movement of goods was in pursuance of and incidental to the contract for the supply of goods used in the execution of the works contract between the respondent-assessee and the Delhi Metro Railway Corporation Ltd. The High Court further came to hold that claimed sales should be deemed to have taken place in course of imports of the goods or inter-state trade and that such import/movement of goods was integrally connected with the contract for their supply to DMRC. On the basis of such twin findings the High Court has held that the transactions constituting inter-State trade and those constituting sale or purchase in the course of import were covered by Section 3(a) and Section 5(2) respectively of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and, therefore, exempt from taxation under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004

AIT-2016-39-SC
Visvesvaraya Technological University Vs. ACIT

the entitlement of the appellant – University – Assessee to exemption from payment of tax under the provisions of Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act- the appellant University does not satisfy the second requirement spelt out by Section 10 (23c) (iiiab) of the Act. The appellant University is neither directly nor even substantially financed by the Government so as to be entitled to exemption from payment of tax under the Act.

AIT-2016-40-SC
ITC Limited Vs. CIT, Delhi
The assessees are engaged in the business of owning, operating, and managing hotels. Surveys conducted at the business premises of the assessees allegedly revealed that the assessees had been paying tips to its employees but not deducting taxes thereon
AIT-2016-48-SC
Ispat Metallics Industries Ltd. & Ors. Vs. CCE, Raigad

a distinction is made between inputs on which credit has been taken which are removed on sale, and those which are removed on transfer. If removed on sale, “transaction value” on the application of Section 4(1)(a) of the valuation rules is to be looked at. However, where the goods are entirely transferred to a sister unit, it is reasonable to adopt the value shown in the invoice on the basis of which Cenvat Credit was taken by the assessee i.e. the invoice of the supplier of the pellets to the assessee.

AIT-2016-49-SC
Indo Burma Petroleum Corp. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner VAT Delhi & Ors.

The idea was to protect the interest of the consumers by giving exemption in respect of enhanced ad valorem VAT payable on account of increase in prices of diesel and petrol from 06.06.2006. On the element of increase no additional ad valorem VAT was payable and according to the proviso the increased component was not to be part of sale consideration. Consequently VAT was not to be charged in respect of such increased component, as per definition of the term “sale price” which came to be controlled by introduction of the proviso. When there was no increased component and therefore no liability to pay VAT in respect of such increased component, benefit under the proviso ceased to be applicable.

AIT-2016-52-SC
Sarla Performance Fibers Limited Vs. CCE, Surat

The Larger Bench vide order dated 03.08.2007 held that in case the goods cleared by the 100% EOU and sold in India whether with or without permission, the assessment shall be made under proviso to Section 3(1) of the Act and the exemption under Notification No. 125/84 shall not be applicable.

AIT-2016-55-SC
Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad

the respondent/assessee is not entitled to avail the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 read with Notification No. 66/2004-Cus dated 09.07.2004 for import of crude palm oil (non-edible grade) which is not used in the manufacture of Industrial Fatty Acid whereas the assessee is using the same for manufacturing the refined edible oil.

AIT-2016-60-SC
M/s. Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT

The appellant-assessee, a private limited company, is having house property, which has been rented and the assessee is receiving income from the said property by way of rent.The main issue in all these appeals is whether the income so received should be taxed under the head "Income from House Property" or "Profit and gains of business or profession". The reason for which the aforestated issue has arisen is that though the assessee is having the house property and is receiving income by way of rent, the case of the assessee is that the assessee company is in business of renting its properties and is receiving rent as its business income, the said income should be taxed under the Head "Profits and gains of business or profession" whereas the case of the Revenue is that as the income is arising from House Property, the said income must be taxed under the head "Income from House Property".

AIT-2016-64-SC
M/s. Addison & Company Ltd. Vs. CCE, Madras

trade discounts shall not be disallowed only because they are not payable at the time of each invoice or deducted from the invoice price. It is the submission of the Assessee that the turnover discount is known to the dealer even at the time of clearance which has also been upheld by this Court. It is clear from the above that the Assessee is entitled for filing a claim for refund on the basis of credit notes raised by him towards turnover discount

AIT-2016-68-SC
Larsen & Tourbo Ltd. Addl. DCCT & Anr.

the value of the work entrusted to the sub-contractors or payments made to them shall not be taken into consideration while computing total turnover for the purposes of Section 6-B of the Karnataka Act.

AIT-2016-70-SC
M/s. A.R. Thermosets Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCT, UP

when bitumen is available in the liquid form, it is known as bitumen emulsion and is commonly known as bitumen when it is available in the solid form; and both the commodities are understood in the same manner in the commercial world and the end use is the same and, therefore, the rate of tax to be determined has to be the same as prescribed for bitumen.

AIT-2016-71-SC
J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd. Vs. CTO, Pali

whether the appellant is entitled to dual benefit of partial exemption under the notification dated 06.05.1986 and also the lower rate of tax @ 6% under notification dated 21.01.2000

AIT-2016-72-SC
M/s. Shasun Chemicals and Drugs Ltd. Vs. CIT, Chennai

Whether expenditure incurred on issue of shares is eligible to be amortized under Section 35D of the Act?

AIT-2016-76-SC
Ayili Stone Industries Etc. Vs. Addl. CCT, Bangalore

There is a distinction between polished granite stone or slabs and tiles. If a polished granite stone is used in a building for any purpose, it will come under Entry 17(i) of Part S of the second schedule, but if it is a tile, which comes into existence by different process, a new and distinct commodity emerges and it has a different commercial identity in the market.

AIT-2016-77-SC
State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. CTO & Ors.

the purchase of Exim scrips by the Bank would not be liable to levy of purchase tax under Section 5(6a) of the Act for accepting the Exim Scrips (Export Import Licence) on payment of premium of 20 per cent of the face value of the scrips

AIT-2016-79-SC
Maharao Bhim Singh Vs. CIT, Rajasthan

where part of the residential palace is found to be in occupation of the tenant and remaining is in occupation of the Ruler for his residence, whether in such circumstances, the Ruler is entitled to claim exemption for the whole of his residential palace under Section 10(19A) or such exemption would confine only to that portion of the palace which is in his actual occupation. In other words, whether the exemption would cease to apply to let out portion thereby subjecting the income derived from let out portion to payment of income-tax in the hands of the Ruler.

AIT-2016-81-SC
Yokogawa Vs. CIT & Anr.

though Section 10A, as amended, is a provision for deduction, the stage of deduction would be while computing the gross total income of the eligible undertaking under Chapter IV of the Act and not at the stage of computation of the total income under Chapter VI


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