Cyber Knowledge Products
 You are not Logged in

Direct Taxes - Special Leave Petitions

Search :
  

SLP DETAILS

 
:2018 TaxPub(DT) 2185 (SC) - Manojkumar Babulal Agrawala v. Secretary, ITSC
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 20646 of 2017 Dated : 26 March, 2018
SECTION - Section 261 Sections 245C & 245D Sections 69A & 132
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Settlement Commission--Admissibility of application--Full and true disclosure
Assessee preferred SLP to appeal against the ruling of Gujarat High Court in Manojkumar Babulal Agrawala v. Secretary (2017) 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1977 (Guj) whereby the High Court held that there was nothing in documents to prove that some of transactions were executed by assessee in the capacity of a broker and an opportunity was given to assessee to produce details of those persons in respect of whom he had executed such brokerage transaction, but he failed to do so, therefore, the assessee had failed to substantiate his claim, hence, the Settlement Commission rightly rejected the application. Held : The Supreme Court granted leave to assessee to appeal against High Court|s ruling. - Where assessee preferred SLP to appeal against the ruling of Gujarat High Court in Manojkumar Babulal Agrawala v. Secretary (2017) 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1977 (Guj), whereby the High Court held that there was nothing in documents to prove that some of transactions were executed by assessee in the capacity of a broker and an opportunity was given to assessee to produce details of those persons in respect of whom he had executed such brokerage transaction, but he failed to do so, therefore, the assessee had failed to substantiate his claim, hence, the Settlement Commission rightly rejected the application, the Supreme Court granted leave to assessee to appeal thereagainst.
DECISION - Leave granted.
:2018 TaxPub(DT) 2095 (SC) - Asstt. CIT v. Radhaswami Salt Works
Special Leave Petition (Civil) (Diary) No. 42502 of 2017 Dated : 16 March, 2018
SECTION - Section 261 Section 2(47) r/w Sections 56 & 147
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Reassessment--Change of opinion--No failure on part of assessee to disclose all material facts
Department preferred SLP to appeal against the ruling of the Gujarat High Court in Radhawami Salt Works v. Asstt. CIT (2018) 400 ITR 249 (Guj), whereby the High Court held that if the AO held a different belief or desire to inquire into the effect of the order of the Collector (Land Revenue), he could and should have done so during the course of assessment and further, since question of correct taxability of receipt by assessee was at large before Tribunal, at that stage, it would not be open for AO to reopen assessment on matter, which was already a subject-matter of appeals, hence, AO could not initiate reassessment proceedings on basis of change of opinion. Held : The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP. - Where the Department preferred SLP to appeal against the ruling of the Gujarat High Court in Radhawami Salt Works v. Asstt. CIT (2018) 400 ITR 249 (Guj), whereby the High Court held that if the AO held a different belief or desire to inquire into the effect of the order of the Collector (Land Revenue), he could and should have done so during the course of assessment and further, since question of correct taxability of receipt by assessee was at large before Tribunal, at that stage, it would not be open for AO to reopen assessment on matter, which was already a subject-matter of appeals, hence, AO could not initiate reassessment proceedings on basis of change of opinion, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP.
DECISION - SLP dismissed.
:2018 TaxPub(DT) 1948 (SC) - Pr.CIT v. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 10740/2018 Dated : 16 April, 2018
SECTION - Section 261 Section 14A Rules 8D
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Disallowance under section 14A--Expenditure against exempt income--Applicability of rule 8D AO did not specifically record that he was not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee
Department filed SLP to appeal against the ruling of Pr. CIT v. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd. (2018) 400 ITR 217 (Bom), whereby the High Court held that AO did not specifically record that he was not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of the expenditure in relation to the income, which does not form part of the total income under the Act and since AO had not commented upon correctness or otherwise of assessee|s working of expenditure, formula prescribed in rule 8D(2)(iii) could not have been applied to work out disallowance under section 14A.Held : The Supreme Court condoned the delay and directed the Registry to issue the notice. - Where the Department filed SLP to appeal against the ruling of Pr. CIT v. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd. (2018) 400 ITR 217 (Bom), whereby the High Court held that AO did not specifically record that he was not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of the expenditure in relation to the income, which does not form part of the total income under the Act and since AO had not commented upon correctness or otherwise of assessee|s working of expenditure, formula prescribed in rule 8D(2)(iii) could not have been applied to work out disallowance under section 14A, the Supreme Court condoned the delay and directed the Registry to issue the notice.
DECISION - Notice issued.
:2018 TaxPub(DT) 1946 (SC) - Pr. CIT v. Nirma Credit and Capital (P) Ltd.
Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 9437/2018 Dated : 9 April, 2018
SECTION - Section 261 Section 14A(1) Rules 8D(2)(ii) & 8D(2)(iii)
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Disallowance under section 14A--Expenditure against exempt income--Failed to prove investment out of own funds--Disallowance of interest expenses to be net of interest earned
Department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Gujarat High Court in Pr. CIT v. Nirma Credit and Capital (P) Ltd. (2018) 300 CTR (Guj) 286, whereby the High Court held that for purpose of applying factors contained in clause (ii) of sub-rule (2) of rule 8D, prior to its amendment with effect from 2-6-2016, amount of expenditure by way of interest would be interest paid by assessee on borrowings less taxable interest earned during financial year, therefore, only net interest expenses were to be considered for the purpose of making disallowance under section 14A. Held : The Supreme Court condoned the delay and deferred the case. - Where department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Gujarat High Court in Pr. CIT v. Nirma Credit and Capital (P) Ltd. (2018) 300 CTR (Guj) 286, whereby the High Court held that for purpose of applying factors contained in clause (ii) of sub-rule (2) of rule 8D, prior to its amendment with effect from 2-6-2016, amount of expenditure by way of interest would be interest paid by assessee on borrowings less taxable interest earned during financial year, therefore, only net interest expenses were to be considered for the purpose of making disallowance under section 14A, the Supreme Court condoned the delay and deferred the case.
DECISION - Case deferred.
:2018 TaxPub(DT) 1831 (SC) - CIT v. Sheba Properties Ltd.
Special Leave Petition (C) Dairy No. 9252/2018 Dated : 6 April, 2018
SECTION - Section 261 Section 40(a)(ia)
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Business disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) Lease aircraft--TDS requirements on credit notes issued towareds variable costs
Department filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Sheba Properties Ltd. [ITA No. 355 of 2015, dt. 1-8-2017], whereby the High Court held that TDS provisions would be applicable on the expenses and not on credit notes issued towards variable costs, hence, requiring no assertion of section 40(a)(ia).Held: The Supreme Court condoned the delay and dismissed the SLP. - Where department filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Sheba Properties Ltd. [ITA No. 355 of 2015, dt. 1-8-2017], whereby the High Court held that TDS provisions would be applicable on the expenses and not on credit notes issued towards variable costs, hence requiring no assertion of section 40(a)(ia), the Supreme Court condoned the delay and dismissed the SLP.
DECISION - SLP dismissed.
:2018 TaxPub(DT) 1632 (SC) - CIT v. E City Project Construction (P) Ltd.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 6211/2018 Dated : 23 March, 2018
SECTION - Section 261 Section 23
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Head of income Business income or income from house property--Rental income from operating of malls
Department filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of Bombay High Court in CIT v. E City Project Construction (P) Ltd. (2017) 298 CTR (Bom) 449, whereby the High Court held that the substantive income of the assessee was from leasing out the shops/malls, thus, the intention of the assessee company was to commercially exploit the property by way of complex commercial activities and it was not a case of letting out of the property simplicitor, therefore, operational income derived from leasing out of shops/malls, were to be treated as |Business income|.Held: The Supreme Court condoned the delay and issued notices to respective parties directing their appearances for further hearing on the income derived from leasing out of shops/malls. - Where the department filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of Bombay High Court in CIT v. E City Project Construction (P) Ltd. (2017) 298 CTR (Bom) 449, whereby the High Court held that the substantive income of the assessee was from leasing out the shops/malls, thus, the intention of the assessee company was to commercially exploit the property by way of complex commercial activities and it was not a case of letting out of the property simplicitor, therefore, operational income derived from leasing out of shops/malls, were to be treated as |Business income|, the Supreme Court condoned the delay and issued notices to resepctive parties directing their appearances for further hearing on the income derived from leasing out of shops/malls.
DECISION - Notice issued.
:2018 TaxPub(DT) 1617 (SC) - CIT v. Ambey Developer (P) Ltd.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 6070/2018 Dated : 12 March, 2018
SECTION - Section 261 Section 80-IB
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Deduction under section 80-IB(10) Income from developing or building housing project--Completed construction within time, however, certificate not received on time
Department filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of P&H High Court in CIT v. Ambey Developer (P) Ltd. (2017) 399 ITR 216 (P&H), whereby the High Court held that where the assessee had completed the construction within the stipulated period and made an application to the local authority within the prescribed time, the issuance of the requisite certificate was within the domain of the competent authority over which the assessee had no control, therefore, the assessee in such circumstances, could not be denied the benefit of section 80-IB(10)(a).Held: The Supreme Court condoned the delay and granted leave to the revenue department to defend their case on the issue of "denial of deduction under section 80-IB to a builder on account of procedural delay in issuance of completion certificate". - Where the department filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of P&H High Court in CIT v. Ambey Developer (P) Ltd. (2017) 399 ITR 216 (P&H), whereby the High Court held that where the assessee had completed the construction within the stipulated period and made an application to the local authority within the prescribed time, the issuance of the requisite certificate was within the domain of the competent authority over which the assessee had no control, therefore, the assessee in such circumstances, could not be denied the benefit of section 80-IB(10)(a), the Supreme Court condoned the delay and granted leave to the revenue department to defend their case on the issue of "denial of deduction under section 80-IB to a builder on account of procedural delay in issuance of completion certificate"
DECISION - Leave granted.
:2018 TaxPub(DT) 1631 (SC) - CIT v. Tripada Education Trust
Special Leave Petition (C) Dairy Nos. 2397/2018 Dated : 12 February, 2018
SECTION - Section 261 Section 115BBC
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Charitable trust Anonymous donations--Applicability of provisions of section 115BBC
Department preferred SLP to appeal aganst the judgment of Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Tipada Education Trust [TA Nos. 342 & 343 of 2017, dt. 13-6-2017], whereby the High Court held that the Tribunal noticed that said sum of Rs. 67.80 lakhs was by way of receipt from admission fees and the trust had passed a resolution receiving admission fees separately from the students with specific stipulation that the same would be used for educational purposes, therefore, amount of admission fees could not be added in the hands of trust.Held:<./b> The Supreme Court condoned the delay and issued notices to respective parties. - Where the department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Tripada Education Trust [TA Nos. 342 & 343 of 2017], dt. 13-6-2017, whereby the High Court held that the Tribunal noticed that said sum of Rs. 67.80 lakhs was by way of receipt from admission fees and the trust had passed a resolution receiving admission fees separately from the students with specific stipulation that the same would be used for educational purposes, therefore, amount of admission fees could not be added in the hands of trust, the Supreme Court condoned the delay and issued notices to respective parties.
DECISION - Notice issued.
:2018 TaxPub(DT) 1626 (SC) - CIT v. Moradabad Development Authority
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 2574/2018 Dated : 16 March, 2018
SECTION - Section 261 Section 118/2(15) Section 12AA
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Development Authority Charitable purpose--Exemption under section 11--Activities in the nature of trade
Department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Moradabad Development Authority [ITA No. 3/2017, dt. 3-5-2017], whereby the High Court held that assessee being a development authority would be entitled to exemption under section 11 as a charitable institution.Held: The Supreme Court condoned delay, issued notices to respective parties directing their appearances for further hearing on the issue of extension of exemption benefits under section 11 to a development authority and directed the Registry to tag the petition along with Diary No. 39737 of 2017. - Where the department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Moradabad Development Authority [ITA No. 3/2017, dt. 3-5-2017], whereby the High Court held that assessee being a development authority would be entitled to exemption under section 11 as a charitable institution, the Supreme Court condoned delay, issued notices to respective parties directing their appearances for further hearing on the issue of extension of exemption benefits under section 11 to a development authority and directed the Regisry to tag the petition along with Diary No. 39737 of 2017.
DECISION - Notice issued.
:2018 TaxPub(DT) 1625 (SC) - CIT v. Linea Fashions (India) (P) Ltd.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 8665/2018 Dated : 28 March, 2018
SECTION - Section 261 Section 10A Section 10B
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Reimbursement of interest of 5% by Government specified loan borrowed by assessee under Government|s Special Scheme for technology upgradation
The department preferred SLP to appeal against the ruling of Madras High Court in CIT v. Linea Fashions India (P) Ltd. (TCA No. 4 of 2017, dt. 23-1-2017)., whereby the High Court held that a manufacturer/trader was entitled to special benefit of Section 10A/10B, if the profit earned by him was directly relatable to eligible activity of export engaged in by the assessee and it was also opined by the High Court that a manufacturer was eligible for deduction under section 10B on the reimbursement of interest made to it by the Central Government under Technology Upgradation Scheme.Held: The Supreme Court condoned the delay and issued notice to respective parties directing their appearances for further hearing on the issue of eligibility of deduction under section 10A/10B on the profits derived by a trader from his export business. - Where the Department preferred SLP to appeal against the ruling of Madras High Court in CIT v. Linea Fashions India (P) Ltd. (TCA No. 4 of 2017, dt. 23-1-2017)., whereby the High Court held that a manufacturer/trader was entitled to special benefit of section 10A/10B, if the profit earned by him was directly relatable to eligible activity of export engaged in by the assessee and it was also opined by the High Court that a manufacturer was eligible for deduction under section 10B on the reimbursement of interest made to it by the Central Government under Technology Upgradation Scheme, the Supreme Court condoned the delay and issued notice to respective parties directing their appearances for further hearing on the issue of eligibility of deduction under section 10A/10B on the profits derived by a trader from his export business.
DECISION - Notice issued.
12345678910...