This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
SC Judgment in Hill Properties case – Substance seems to have prevailed over Form
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- Hill Properties Ltd. Vs Union Bank of India and others (Supreme Court of India)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Courts
- Supreme Court of India
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
V.Swaminathan B.Sc., BL. FCA
Attention may be usefully invited to the apex court judgment delivered in Hill Properties Ltd.’s case, in September 2013. in which it was held that Occupancy Right In Flat Is Equal To Ownership: SC.
The extracts below, from that judgment might help in appreciating in proper light the crux of the dispute and the essence of the controversy raised and fought for by the two sides in that matter of a civil appeal:
Learned senior counsel (for the Appellant) placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Bacha F. Guzdar,Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax,...
Author Info
ADD-on , to UPDATE(:
Attention may have to be invited to the Order of the ITAT Mumbai, in the case of ITO Vs. Hill Properties Ltd, I.T.A. No.2999/M/2012 (AY: 2009-2010), Date of Pronouncement:20.12.2013
It is seen that, the ITAT has favorably decided the taxpayers’claim for tax exemption on certain receipts, by applying the principle of mutuality. Similar claim in respect of interest income from bank deposits, however, as conceded by taxpayer’s counsel, has been remanded to the AO, for consideration of the claim in the light of the SC Judgment in re. Bangalore Club, cited and relied upon by the Revenue.
In that case, however, interest from non-member banks having been volunteered and offered for tax, – no knowing as to what was the rationale or thought behind- the only dispute was on taxability of interest from member-banks. Now, in Hill Properties case, it is unclear, whether or not the disputed interest is received from a shareholder- (member-) bank of the company . If not, then the apex court judgment will, for obvious reason , have provided no useful guidance or clues to fall back, for AO in deciding either way. That means a fresh spate of controversy and prolonged litigation might follow.
Anyone with independent thoughts or view to spare and share !
The instant write-up is intended to update the earlier one analysing the itat order in re. Shantikumar D Majithia vs. DCIT