Category: Supreme Court
Income Tax Rule 8D is prospective in operation and could not apply to any assessment year prior to AY 2008-09 – Supreme Court settles the law ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2188 (2018) (01) SC Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties: Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Meerut Vs. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons, …
Deadline for linking Aadhaar with bank and mobile extended to 31-03-2017. Supreme Court directs extension for both Union Government and State Schemes. Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2147 (2017) (11) SC The primary submission of the petitioners was that in terms of the interim order of the Constitution Bench: …
Exemption u/s 80IB ineligible if undertaking do not remain SSI in a particular assessment year even if in initial year eligibility was satisfied.-Supreme Court ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2143 (2017) (12) SC The Challenge/Grievance: The instant appeal was filed by the Income Tax Department (the Revenue/Department) against …
CBDT Instruction of tax effect applies to pending appeals also subject to the two caveats provided in Surya Herbal Ltd. Case – Supreme Court ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 2132 (2017) (11) SC In a recent judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that CBDT cannot issue circular with …
CBDT cannot issue circular with retrospective effect-Supreme Court. Revised monetary limits for appeals to apply prospectively. CBDT vide Instruction No. 3/2011 dated 09.02.2011 had revised the monetary limits of tax effect for filing appeals before, Tribunal, High Courts or Supreme Court. The para 11 of the said Instruction stated …
Supreme Court explains scope and interpretation of Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act 1961. Provisions of Sections 5 and 9 not excluded where Section 44BB is opted ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2109 (2017) (11) SC Brief Facts of the Case: For computation of profits and gains …
Mere outsourcing business to Indian subsidiary do not constitute Permanent Establishment within the meaning of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement – Supreme Court ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2105 (2017) (10) SC The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a recent judgment has laid down that outsourcing of services by …
Deemed Dividend u/s 2(22)(e) do not extend to non-shareholders. The fiction not to be extended further for broadening the concept of shareholders – Supreme Court agrees with High Court ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2099 (2017) (10) SC Deemed Dividend u/s 2(22)(e) do not extend to non-shareholders In …
Supreme Court explains the concept of income tax on Joint development agreement and applicability u/s 2(47) and section 45 and 48 where the JDA was not registered and was abandoned In an important judgment, Supreme Court has explained the concept of income tax on Joint development agreement and …
Proceeding u/s 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 are deemed judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 IPC -Supreme Court ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2083 (2017) (09) SC The Substantial Question of Law framed/urged for determination: Whether complaint …
