(1) Exemption notification should be interpreted strictly; the burden of proving applicability would be on the assessee to show that his case comes within the parameters of the exemption clause or exemption notification.
Recently, in Union of India v. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd., Hon’ble SC had resolved the existing controversy regarding whether reimbursement expenses provided by service receiver are to be included in value of taxable service for charging to service tax.
Kishan Rao Vs Shankargouda (Supreme Court Of India) In the present case, the trial court as well as the Appellate Court having found that cheque contained the signatures of the accused and it was given to the appellant to present in the Bank of the presumption under Section 139 was rightly raised which was not […]
Supreme Court has in the case of PCIT Vs. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia upheld the Gujarat high Court Order and dismissed the special leave petition filed by Department on the issue of deletion of Addition for Bogus Purchases. Text of the High Court Judgment in TAX APPEAL NO. 691 of 2017 dated: 18 September, 2017 is […]
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Vs CCIT (Supreme Court) Appellant namely ‘New Okhla Industrial Development Authority; claimed that he is covered by Clause (ii) of the Explanation to Section 10(2) i.e. Municipality as referred to in clause (e) of Article 243P of the Constitution. We, while discussing above provisions, have already held that the appellant […]
Waiver of loan for acquiring capital assets could not be taxed as perquisites under section 28(iv) since receipts were in the nature of cash or money. Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act does not apply since waiver of loan does not amount to cessation of trading liability. It is a matter of record that the assessee had not claimed any deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act qua the payment of interest in any previous year.
This appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 18.09.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in S.A. No. 780 of 2006 whereby learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein at the admission stage.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) It was held that measure of the levy contemplated in Section 4 of the Act will not be controlled by the nature of the levy. So long a reasonable nexus is discernible between the measure and the nature of the levy both […]
Mahabir Industries Vs. PCIT (Supreme High Court) The assessee in the instant case has not got deduction under Section 80-IC for a period of ten years as he started claiming deduction under this provision w.e.f. Assessment Year 2006-07. Situation Nos. (b) and (c) mentioned above would not apply to the assessee as it’s undertaking/enterprise is […]
To make matters worse, in this appeal, the Union of India has engaged 10 lawyers, including an Additional Solicitor General and a Senior Advocate! This is as per the appearance slip submitted to the Registry of this Court. In other words, the Union of India has created a huge financial liability by engaging so many lawyers for an appeal whose fate can be easily imagined on the basis of existing orders of dismissal in similar cases. Yet the Union of India is increasing its liability and asking the taxpayers to bear an avoidable financial burden for the misadventure.
