Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Supreme Court of India

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

December 8, 1998 1704 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 1969 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.

Southern Switchgears Ltd. v. CIT (Supreme Court) 1998 232 ITR 359

December 11, 1997 1884 Views 0 comment Print

Civil Appeals Nos 6082, 6083, 6084, 6085 and 6086 of 1990 and 5516 of 1997 (Appeals from the judgment and order dated March 29, 1983 of the Madras High Court in Tax Cases Nos 1065-69 of 1977 and 1070-74 of 1977),

National Rayon Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1997) 227 ITR 764 (SC)

July 29, 1997 1630 Views 0 comment Print

SEN, J. The point that falls for determination in this case is whether a sum of Rs. 79 lakhs representing Debenture Redemption Reserve was includible in computing the capital of the assessee Company for the purpose of Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The High Court took the view that the amount set apart to redeem the debentures has to be treated as ‘provision’ and not as ‘reserve’.

Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT – Supreme Court

April 4, 1997 15704 Views 0 comment Print

Since the entire liability to pay the discount had been incurred in the accounting year in question, the assessee was entitled to deduct the entire amount of Rs 3,00,000 in that accounting year This conclusion does not appear to be justified looking to the nature of the liability It is true that the liability has been incurred in the accounting year

Aditanar Educational Institution vs Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax (1997) 3 SCC 346

February 5, 1997 4280 Views 0 comment Print

Dismissing the appeal filled by the Revenue and the cross appeal of the assessee, this Court HELD : 1.1. An educational society or Trust or other similar body running an educational institution solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profits could be regarded as `other educational institution’ coming within Section 10(22) of the Act. [954-F]

Excise on goods manufactured prior to March 1, 1978 but removed on or after March 1, 1978?

February 28, 1996 672 Views 0 comment Print

The special excise duty was being levied from 1963 upto 1971 by various Finance Acts passed from time to time. It was discontinued from 1972 until 1978 when it was revived by the Finance Act, 1978. Thereafter, it was being levied from year to year by annual Finance Acts.The provisions of these Finance Acts,insofar as the levy of special excise duty is concerned,are identical

SC Judgment on Whether apparent can be considered as real?

March 28, 1995 7236 Views 0 comment Print

Explore the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (Commissioner of Income Tax) and understand whether the apparent can be considered as real. The judgment emphasizes the application of the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances in taxation matters. Learn about the key findings of the court, the relevance of the case in assessing income, and the caution against the indiscriminate application of the judgment in various scenarios.

Order U/s. 154 includes amended order & rectified order also

January 20, 1995 4856 Views 0 comment Print

Hind Wire Industries Ltd. V CIT (1995) 212 ITR 639 SC- What falls for consideration in the present case is the interpretation of the expression from the date of the order sought to be amended in sub-section (7) of section 154 as it stood then It is obvious that the word order has not been qualified in any way and it does not necessarily mean the original order It can be any order including the amended or rectified order.

N. Nagendra Rao and Company Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh – Supreme Court

September 6, 1994 7908 Views 0 comment Print

he Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.M. SAHAI, J.- Is the State vicariously liable for negligence of its officers in discharge of their statutory duties, was answered in the negative by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on the ratio laid down by this Court in Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
April 2025
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930