Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Supreme Court of India

Hire purchase transaction liable to imposition of Sales Tax- SC

August 9, 2000 3659 Views 0 comment Print

Sale price means the amount payable to a dealer as consideration for transfer of goods on hire purchase. The word sale occurring in Sec. 2(h) must have the meaning ascribed to it as in Section 2(g) when the word sale includes transfer of goods on hire purchase, then whatever is the amount which is paid/payable to the dealer on such a transfer would be included within the meaning

Bharat Earth Movers vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (Supreme Court)

August 9, 2000 12657 Views 0 comment Print

Law is settled- If a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date. What should be certain is the incurring of the liability. It should also be capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantification may not be possible

M/s. Chelmsford Club Vs CIT (Supreme Court)

March 2, 2000 7304 Views 0 comment Print

The High Court relying on Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and following the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of C.I.T., U.P. v. Wheeler Club Limited {(1963) 49 ITR 52} and some observations of the Delhi High Court in the case of C.I.T., Delhi-II v. Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. (155 ITR 373)

Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation Vs. CIT – Supreme Court

February 23, 2000 4446 Views 0 comment Print

Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan, Shri Ashok Desai, Shri V. Gauri Shankar, Dr. D.P. Pal, Shri Joseph Vellapally, Shri K.N. Shukla, Shri Pallav Shishodia, Shri A.P. Medh, Ms. Priya Hingorani, Shri B.K. Prasad, Shri S.N. Terdol, Shri S. Rajappa, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Shri N.L. Garg, Shri C.V. Subba Rao, Shri Ranbir Chandra, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Shri S.K. Dwivedi, Shri Tarun Gulati

Beneficial ownership is relevant than legal ownership to claim depreciation – SC

February 8, 2000 12327 Views 0 comment Print

The appellant-assessee is a private limited company. During the assessment year 1981-82 (accounting year ending on March 31, 1981), the assessee had purchased for the use of its staff seven low income group houses from the Housing Board. The assessee had made part payments and was in turn made allotment of the houses followed by delivery of possession

Rainbow Colour Lab & Anr Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors -Supreme Court

February 2, 2000 2843 Views 0 comment Print

Common questions involved in these appeals are whether the job rendered by a photographer in taking photographs, developing and printing films would amount to a works contract as contemplated under Article 366(2A)(b) of the Constitution read with Section 2(n) of the M.P.General Sales Tax for the purpose of levy of sales tax on business turnover of the photographers.

S.195 TDS is deductible only on Taxable Portion

August 17, 1999 3780 Views 0 comment Print

Answers given by the High Court that (i) the assessee who made the payments to the three non-residents was under obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 195 of the Act in respect of the sums paid to them under the contracts entered into; and (ii) the obligation of the respondent-assessee to deduct tax under Section 195 is limited only to appropriate proportion of income chargeable under the Act, are correct.

Reference to document outside the record & law impermissible when applying provision of section 154

March 18, 1999 3123 Views 0 comment Print

CIT V Keshri Metal Pvt Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 165 SC- Under the provisions of Section 154 there has to be a mistake apparent from the record. In other words, a look at the record must show there has been an error, and that error may be rectified. Learned counsel for the revenue has not been able to satisfy us that it shows any apparent error upon the record.

Audits cannot be performed by Income Tax Practitioners as special aptitude training retained by Chartered Accountants only

December 8, 1998 1689 Views 0 comment Print

The current Section 44AB of the IT Act has been challenged by the Appellant on behalf of the Income Tax Practitioners. The Appellant contends that the Income Tax Practitioners should be entitled to be authorized representatives and that they are excluded for auditing accounts which violates their Fundamental Rights, specifically Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution.

Mere Lapse of litigant not enough to not to condone delay in filing of Appeal

September 3, 1998 1948 Views 0 comment Print

It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor.

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
January 2025
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031