You are not Logged in

Direct Taxes - Special Leave Petitions

Search :
  

SLP DETAILS

 
2017 TaxPub(DT) 1355 (SC) : (2017) 246 Taxman 372 (SC) - CIT v. Sri Sri Adichunchunagiri Shikshana Trust
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 4750 of 2017 Dated : 6 March, 2017
SECTION - Section 261 Section 11 Section 32
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special Leave Petition Charitable trust Exemption under section 11--Allowability of depreciation where cost of asset allowed as application of income--Applicability of sub-section (6)
Department filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Sri Sri Adichunchunagiri Shikshana Trust (2016) 72 ITCL 74 (Karn-HC), whereby the High Court held that income of assessee being exempt, depreciation was claimed only for determining the percentage of funds which was to be applied for the purposes of the trust and same did not result into double deduction as canvassed by the revenue and amendment brought by introduction of sub-section (6) to section 11 is prospective in nature and would operate with effect from 1-4-2015.Held: The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. - Where department filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Sri Sri Adichunchunagiri Shikshana Trust (2016) 72 ITCL 74 (Karn-HC), whereby the High Court held that income of assessee being exempt, depreciation was claimed only for determining the percentage of funds which was to be applied for the purposes of the trust and same did not result into double deduction as canvassed by the revenue and amendment brought by introduction of sub-section (6) to section 11 is prospective in nature and would operate with effect from 1-4-2015, the Supreme Court granted leave to apppeal.
DECISION - SLP granted.
2017 TaxPub(DT) 1552 (SC) - Preeti Elhence v. CIT
Special Leave To Appeal (C) No. 2393 of 2015 Dated : 1 May, 2017
SECTION - Section 261 Section 127
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Transfer of case Validity--Co-ordinated and meaningful investigation--CIT recorded cogent reasons for transferring the case
Assessee filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of Allahabad High Court in Preeti Elhence v. CIT (2014) 365 ITR 268 (All), whereby the High Court held that since reasons recorded by CIT could not be said to be irrelevant or not germane to the issues, there was no error commited by CIT in transferring the case of assessee under section 127(1).Held:,/i>Preeti Elhence v. CIT (2014) 365 ITR 268 (All), whereby the High Court held that since reasons recorded by CIT could not be said to be irrelevant or not germane to the issues, there was no error committed by CIT in transferring the case of assessee under section 127(1), the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP.
DECISION - Against the assessee.
2017 TaxPub(DT) 1126 (SC) - Dev Bhumi Industries v. CIT
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 8144 of 2017 Dated : 24 March, 2017
SECTION - Section 261 Section 127
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Power to transfer cases Agreement High Court ruled that writ petition during pendency of statutory appeal before CIT(A) not maintainable
Assessee filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Dev Bhumi Industries v. CIT 2016 Tax Pub DT 4827 (HP) : (2016) 290 CTR (HP) 317, whereby the High Court held that there being no extraordinary situation or circumstance warranting to court to step in to interfere, it was viewed that the instant writ petition was not maintainable. Held: The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP. - Where assessee filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Dev Bhumi Industries v. CIT 2016 Tax Pub DT 4827 (HP) : (2016) 290 CTR (HP) 317, whereby the High Court held that there being no extraordinary situation or circumstance warranting to court to step-in to interfere, it was viewed that the instant writ petition was not maintainable, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP.
DECISION - Against the assessee.
2017 TaxPub(DT) 1125 (SC) : (2017) 246 Taxman 221 (SC) - CIT v. M.L. Outsourcing Services (P.) Ltd.
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2398 of 2015 Dated : 6 March, 2017
SECTION - Section 261 Section 10A
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Deduction under section 19A Undertakihg in a free trade zone--Activity of recruting of personnel and supply of data thereof--Applicability of Notification No. S.O. 890(E), dt. 26-9-200
Department filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of Delhi High Court in CIT v. ML Outsourcing Services (P) Ltd. (2014) 271 CTR Del) 553 : (2014) Tax Pub DT 3788, whereby the High Court held that as the assessee was providng recruitment services to a US based company by using information technology in scanning the data, processing it, conducting online tests for shortlisted candidates, and analysing their results, such, activities were covered under Notification No. SO 890(E), i.e., human resource services and, therefore, assessee was entitled to benefit under section 10A. Held: The Supreme Court granted leave to department to appeal. - Where department filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of Delhi High Court in CIT v. ML Outsourcing Services (P) Ltd. (2014) 271 CTR (Del) 553 : (2014) Tax Pub DT 3788 whereby the High Court held that as the assessee was providing recruitment services to a US based comnpany by using information technology in scanning the data, processing it, conducting online tests for shortlisted candidates, and analysing their results, such, activities were covered under Notification No. SO 890(E), i.e., human resource services and, therefore, assessee was entitled to benefit under section 10A, the Supreme Court granted leave to department to appeal.
DECISION - SLP granted.
2017 TaxPub(DT) 901 (SC) : (2017) 393 ITR 24 (SC) - CIT v. J.P. Morgan Services India Pvt. Ltd.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (CC) No. 21191 of 2016 Dated : 27 March, 2017
SECTION - Sections 10A & 261
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special Leave Petition Deduction under section 10A--Undertaking in a free trade zone Benefit of adjustment of losses by way of set off of unabsorbed depreciation and business loss brought forward against current years profit made by eligible section 10A unit
Where Department filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of Bombay High Court in ITA No. 2188 of 2013, dated 21-3-2016, whereby the High Court refused to entertain the appeal on the question whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and business loss could be set off against the current year|s profit of the section 10A unit on the ground that the issue was covered by the decision of the High Court in CIT v. Block and Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 348 ITR 72 (Bom), the Supreme Court disposed of the SLP in terms of CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. (2017) 391 ITR 274 (SC). Held: Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the issues raised in the present petition is squarely covered by a decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 8498 of 2013, decided on 16-12-2016. In view of the above, the present special leave petition was disposed of in the same terms as Civil Appeal No. 8498 of 2013 (2017) 391 ITR 274 (SC). - Where Department filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of Bombay High Court in ITA No. 2188 of 2013, dated 21-3-2016, whereby the High Court refused to entertain the appeal on the question whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and business loss could be set off against the current year|s profit of the section 10A unit on the ground that the issue was covered by the decision of the High Court in CIT v. Block and Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 348 ITR 72 (Bom), the Supreme Court disposed of the SLP in terms of CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. (2017) 391 ITR 274 (SC), holding that deductions to be granted computing total gross income of eligible undertaking under Chapter IV and not at stage of computation of total income under Chapter VI.
DECISION - In assessee|s favour.
2017 TaxPub(DT) 1103 (SC) - CIT v. Omaxe Buildhome (P.) Ltd.
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 3926 of 2017 Dated : 23 February, 2017
SECTION - Section 261 Section 80-IB
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special Leave Petition Deduction under section 80-IB In respect of two schemes of the entire projects out of several--As only these two were section 80-IB(10) compliant
Department filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of Delhi High Court in CIT v.Omaxe Buildhome (P) Ltd. (2016) 72 ITCL 291 (Del-HC), whereby the High Court held that housing project consisted of towers built on the plot of lands clearly demarcated on the sanctioned plans and separated from other projects and they were complete and independent real estate developments because the same consisted not only of built-up residential buildings but also of separate common facilities and amenities povided for the residential units of the each housing project, therefore, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 80-IB on each project being separate housing project, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP. - Where department filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of Delhi High Court in CIT v.Omaxe Buildhome (P) Ltd. (2016) 72 (2) ITCL 291 (Del-HC), whereby the High Court held that housing project consisted of towers built on the plot of lands clearly demarcated on the sanctioned plans and separated from other projects and they were complete and independent real estate developments because the same consisted not only of built-up residential buildings but also of separate common facilities and amenities povided for the residential units of the each housing project, therefore, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 80-IB on each project being separate housing project, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP.
DECISION - SLP dismissed.
2017 TaxPub(DT) 1549 (SC) - DIT v. Nortel Networks India International Inc.
Special Leave To Appeal (C) No. 9055 of 2017 Dated : 4 May, 2017
SECTION - Section 261 Section 9 Article 5/7
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special Leave Petition Income deemed to accrue or arise in India Under section 9(1)(i)--Business profit--Permanent establishment vis-a-vis ruling of High Court
Department filed SLP against the judgment of Delhi High Court in Nortel Networks India International Inc. v. Dy. DIT (2016) 386 ITR 353 (Del), whereby the High Court held that (i) where Indian AE did not exercise any authority on behalf of assessee US company to conclude contracts in India or not officer of India AE were at disposal of assessee, Indian AE would not constitute assessee|s PE in India, and (ii) by virtue of Explanation 2, read with Explanation 3, to section 9(1)(i), no part of assessee|s income could be brought to tax under Act and that income from installation, commissioning and testing activities as well as any function performed by expatriate employees of group companies seconded to Indian AE would be subject to tax in hands of Indian AE and same could not be considered as income of assessee. Held: The Supreme Court granted leave to department to appeal. - Where department filed SLP against the judgment of Delhi High Court in Nortel Networds India International Inc. v. Dy. DIT (2016) 386 ITR 353 (Del), whereby the High Court held that (i) where Indian AE did not exercise any authority on behalf of assessee US company to conclude contracts in India or no officer of Indian AE were at disposal of assessee, Indian AE would not constitute assessee|s PE in India, and (ii) by virtue of Explanation 2, read with Explanation 3, to section 9(1)(i), no part of assessee|s income could be brought to tax under Act and that income from installation, commissioning and testing activities as well as any function performed by expatriate employees of group companies seconded to Indian AE would be subject to tax in hands of Indian AE and same could not be considered as income of assessee, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeals.
DECISION - Against the assessee.
2017 TaxPub(DT) 1544 (SC) - CIT v. Gokula Education Foundation
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 8834 of 2017 Dated : 1 May, 2017
SECTION - Section 261 Section 11(2) Rule 17
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special Leave Petition Charitable trust Exemption under section 11--Furnishing of Form No. 10--Accumulation of income
Department filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of Karnataka High Court in CIT v. (Exemptions) v. Gokula Education Foundation (2017 394 ITR 236 (Karn), whereby the High Court held that as long as objects of trust were charitable in character and purpose or purposes mentioned in Form No. 10 were for achieving objects of trust, merely because details were not furnished, assessee could not be denied benefit of exemption under section 11(2).Held: The Supreme Court granted leave to department to appeal. - Where department filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of Karnataka-High Court in CIT v. (Exemptions) v. Gokula Education Foundation (2017 394 ITR 236 (Karn), whereby the High Court held that as long as objects of trust were charitable in character and purpose or purposes mentioned in Form No. 10 were for achieving objects of trust, merely because details were not furnished, assessee could not be denied benefit of exemption under section 11(2), the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal thereagainst.
DECISION - Against the assessee
2017 TaxPub(DT) 1129 (SC) - Formula One World Championship Ltd. v. CIT
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 1798 of 2017 Dated : 7 March, 2017
SECTION - Section 261 Section 9 Article 5
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special Leave Petition Income deemed to accrue or arise in India Under section 9(1)--Permanent establishment--Attribution of business profits
Assessee filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of Delhi High Court in Formula One World Championship Ltd. v. CIt (2017) 390 ITR 199 (Del), whereby the High Court held that assessee had a fixed place PE in India under article 5(1) through circuit which constituted its fixed place of business and, accordingly, Jaypee would be bound to make appropriate deductions under section 195 from amounts payable to assessee.Held: The Supreme Court granted leave to assessee to appeal. - Where assessee filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of Delhi High Court in Formula One World Championship Ltd. v. CIT (2017) 390 ITR 199 (Del), whereby the High Court held that assessee had a fixed place PE in India under article 5(1) through circuit which constituted its fixed place of business and, accordingly, Jaypee would be bound to make appropriate deductions under section 195 from amounts payable to assessee, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
DECISION - In assessee|s favour.
2017 TaxPub(DT) 1127 (SC) - CIT v. Idea Cellular Ltd.
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 6473 of 2017 Dated : 3 April, 2017
SECTION - Section 261 Section 37(1)
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special Leave Petition Business expenditure Expenses incurred for construction of new cellular towards--Abandoned project--Allowability
Where department filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Idea Cellular Ltd. ITA No. 516 of 2015, dt. 30-9-2016 : 2016 Tax Pub DT 4396 (Bom-HC), whereby the High Court held that as new cellular towers were constructed by assessee for providing cellular services to customers, no new business was set up and therefore, expenditure so far incurred would be allowed as business expenditure.Held: The Supreme Court granted leave to department to appeal. - Where department filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Idea Cellular Ltd. ITA No. 516 of 2015, dt. 30-9-2016 : 2010 Tax Pub DT 4396 (Bom-HC), whereby the High Court held that as new cellular towers were constructed by assessee for providing cellular services to customers, no new business was set up and therefore, expenditure so far incurred would be allowed as business expendiure, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
DECISION - Against the assessee.
12345678910...