The long-awaited decision in the Prudential case was handed down by the UK Supreme Court on the morning of Wednesday 23 January. R (on the application of Prudential plc and another) (Appellants) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and another (Respondents) was heard by a full panel of seven law lords.  By a majority of [...]

The fundamental question before the High Court was whether there was in fact a gift of 14,000 bonus shares made by the assess to the transferee. The answer to this question lies in the interpretation of Section 4(1)(c) of the Act which reads as follows :- “Gifts to include certain transfers. 4. (1) For the [...]

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision dated January 14, 2013 in the case of CCE v/s M/s Australian Foods India (P) Ltd. held that even though goods manufactured by Small Scale Industries (SSI) do not physically bear brand name or logo but such manufactured goods are sold from branded sale outlets,

Notice cannot be issued when returns are pending – Notice cannot be issued unless the return which has already been filed has been disposed of – CIT v. M.K.K.R. Muthukaruppan Chettiar [1970] 78 ITR 69 (SC); Bhagwan Das Sita Ram (HUF) v. CIT [1984] 146 ITR 563 (SC).

Where the HUF was in existence during the relevant year and a partition took place later, for purposes of initiating reassessment proceedings for that year, it would not be necessary to issue notice to every member of the family – Lakshminarain Bhadani v. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 594 (SC).

Notice to company registered in Sikkim – A notice under section 148 can be validly issued on a company, if it is in respect of income which is stated to have arisen in India, even though the registered office of the company is situated in Sikkim – Alankar Commercial (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2000] 244 ITR 31 (SC).

Number of notices that can be issued – If the appellant had already been served with a notice under section 148 and had complied therewith by filing a return, it was entitled to contend that no second notice lay and also to submit that in any event, the second notice was barred by time.

A notice in the case of a firm need not necessarily be issued to each and every one of its partners – Y. Narayana Chetty v. ITO [1959] 35 ITR 388 (SC).

In case of goods sold from exclusive single brand retail outlets or restaurants or stores, the fact that a good is sold from such a store ought to be a relevant fact in construing if the good is its branded good or not. In the case of such goods, perhaps a rebuttable presumption arises in favour of such goods being branded goods of the specified store.

In the instant case, after the search was conducted on 23rd February 2006, it was found that for the assessment year 1995-96, the respondent-assessee had not filed its return of income by the due date. It is only when block assessment proceedings were initiated by the assessing officer, that the assessee filed its return for the said assessment year on 11th July, 1996 under Section 158BC of the Act, showing its total income as Rs.7,02,768/-.