Cyber Knowledge Products
 You are not Logged in

Direct Taxes - Special Leave Petitions

Search :
  

SLP DETAILS

 
:2017 TaxPub(DT) 5385 (SC) - CIT v. Sahyog Jan Kalyan Samiti
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 38014/2017 Dated : 15 December, 2017
SECTION - Section 261 Section 68 Section 115BC
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Condonation of delay Addition under section 68 on account of anonymous donation/unexplained corpus donation
Department filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of Allahabad High court in CIT v. Sahyog Jan Kalyan Samiti [ITA No. 207 of 2015, dated 6-9-2016], whereby the High Court held that no addition on account of unexplained corpus donation could be made under section 68.Held: There was a delay of 353 days in preferring the special leave petition which had not been satisfactorily explained. Even the tax effect is approximately Rs. 8 lakhs. For these reasons the special leave petition was dismissed. - Where department filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Sahyog Jan Kalyan Samiti [ITA No. 207 of 2015, dated 6-9-2016], whereby the High Court held that no addition on account of unexplained corpus donation could be made under section 68, the Supreme Court having regard to inordinate delay in filing petition and low tax effect, dismissed the SLP.
DECISION - SLP dismissed.
:2017 TaxPub(DT) 5142 (SC) : (2017) 251 Taxman 1 (SC) - Pr. CIT v. Mitsui Prime Advanced Composites India (P.) Ltd.
Diary No(s). 18776 of 2017 Dated : 21 July, 2017
SECTION - Section 261 Section 92C Section 271(1)(c)
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Transfer pricing Computation of ALP--concealment of income--Penalty under section 271(1)(c)
Department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Delhi High Court in CIT v. Mitsui Prime Advanced Composites India (P) Ltd. (2017) 392 ITR 280 (Del), whereby the High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in holding that (i) agreements amply showed that assessee made payments under these international transactions for acquiring |Business| of supply to Maruti Suzuki and for availing engineering services for setting up of plant required for manufacturing of products to be supplied to Maruti Suzuki and availing of services under these Agreements could not be characterized as duplication of services and, (ii) since assessee had proved that price paid by it was computed in accordance with provisions of section 92C and in manner prescribed under TNMM in good faith and with due diligence, no penalty could be imposed under section 271(1)(c) and further held that even otherwise, having regard to fact that assessee|s claim was in respect of a new line of business of manufacturing, introduced for first time in given year, its failure per se could not have triggered automatic presumptive application of 7th Explanation of section 271(1)(c) as perceived by revenue authorities in this regard.Held: The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP. - Where department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Delhi High Court in CIT v. Mitsui Prime Advanced Composites India (P) Ltd. (2017) 392 ITR 280 (Del), whereby the High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in holding that (i) agreements amply showed that assessee made payments under these international transactions for acquiring |Business| of supply to Maruti Suzuki and for availing engineering services for setting up of plant required for manufacturing of products to be supplied to Maruti Suzuki and availing of services under these Agreements could not be characterized as duplication of services and, (ii) since assessee had proved that price paid by it was computed in accordance with provisions of section 92C and in manner prescribed under TNMM in good faith and with due diligence, no penalty could be imposed under section 271(1)(c) and further held that even otherwise, having regard to fact that assessee|s claim was in respect of a new line of business of manufacturing, introduced for first time in given year, its failure per se could not have triggered automatic presumptive application of 7th Explanation of section 271(1)(c) as perceived by revenue authorities in this regard, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP.
DECISION - SLP dismissed.
:2017 TaxPub(DT) 5022 (SC) : (2017) 299 CTR (SC) 321 - CIT v. S.R.M.B. Dairy Farming (P.) Ltd.
Petition(s) for Special Civil Appeal (C) No. 24055 of 2013 Dated : 23 November, 2017
SECTION - Section 261
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Applicability of circular raising limit for filing cases with High Court Position for pending cases
The subject issue involved here is regarding implementation of Instruction No. 3 of 2011, dt. 9-2-2011, is providing for appeals not to be filed before the High Court(s) where the tax impact was less than Rs. 10 lakhs whereas earlier this limit was Rs. 4 lakhs. Department is applying this circular with retrospective effect also to existing cases pending. The contention of assessee was that it is not to be applied in case of existing matters pending as on the date of circular issued. Held : The retrospective applicability of the Circular dated 9-2-2011 is not to be interfered with, but with two caveats -- (i) Circular should not be applied by the High Courts ipso facto when the matter has a cascading effect; (ii) common principles may be involved in subsequent group of matters or a large number of matters. In such cases, the attention of the High Court would be drawn and the Department was even given liberty to move the High Court in two weeks. - Where the limit for filing appeal before High Court was raised from Rs. 4 lakhs to Rs. 10 lakhs and issue raised was regarding the applicability of circular to pending cases with court, it was held that retrospective applicability of the circular not to be interfered with, but with two caveats -- (i) Circular should not be applied by the High Courts ipso facto when the matter has a cascading effect; (ii) common principles may be involved in subsequent group of matters or a large number of matters.
DECISION - Partly in assessee|s favour.
:2017 TaxPub(DT) 5220 (SC) - CIT v. Axis Bank Ltd
SLP (Civil) Diary No. 24582/2017 Dated : 1 December, 2017
SECTION - Section 261 Section 264 Article 32
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Remand order Writing off preference shares--High Court directed Tribunal to consider applicability of decision of Supreme Court relied upon by it to facts of assessee|s case
Department filed the instant SLP to appeal against the judgment of Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Axis Bank Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 22 of 2017, dt. 16-1-2017] , whereby the High Court held that Tribunal cannot straightway remand a mater to AO without examining the merits of same by merely placing reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court, in case the applicability of such decision to the facts of assessee|s case was not determined with regard to current proceedings.Held: The Supreme Court condoning the delay directed Registry to issue notice and tag the present case along with Civil Appeal No. 1926 of 2014, [CIT v. UTI Bank Ltd. Through its Manager] - Where department filed the instant SLP to appeal against the judgment of Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Axis Bank Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 22 of 2017, dt. 16-1-2017] , whereby the High Court held that Tribunal cannot straightway remand a mater to AO without examining the merits of same by merely placing reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court, in case the applicability of such decision to the facts of assessee|s case was not determined with regard to current proceedings, the Supreme Court condoning the delay directed Registry to issue notice and tag the present case along with Civil Appeal No. 1926 of 2014 [CIT v. UTI Bank Ltd. Through its Manager]
DECISION - Notice issued.
:2017 TaxPub(DT) 4871 (SC) - CIT v. Sideways Investment (P.) Ltd.
SLP (C) Diary. No. 18732 of 2017 Dated : 13 October, 2017
SECTION - Section 261 Section 69
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Income from undisclosed sources Addition under section 69-Burden of proof
Department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Sideways Investment (P) Ltd. [ITA No. 55 of 2,000, dated 25-10-2016], whereby the High Court held that taking into consideration that the assessee had proved the identity of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction and the transaction was reflected in the balance-sheet of the creditor, the Tribunal had not committed any error in holding that the advance received by the assessee from S was satisfactorily explained. Held:<./i> The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP. - Where department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Sideways Investment (P) Ltd. [ITA No. 55 of 2,000, dated 25-10-2016], whereby the High Court held that taking into consideration that the assessee had proved the identity of the creditor and genuineness of the transactions and the transactions was reflected in the balance-sheet of the creditor, the Tribunal had not committed any error in holding that the advance received by the assessee from S was satisfactorily explained, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP.
DECISION - SLP dismissed.
:2017 TaxPub(DT) 4874 (SC) - Cushman and Wakefield (India) (P) Ltd. v. CIT
SLP (C) No. 27633 of 2014 Dated : 6 October, 2017
SECTION - section 261 Section 92C
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Transfer pricing--Computation of ALP Reimbursement of costs
Assessee preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Delhi High Court in ITA No. 475 of 2012, dated 23-5-2014 [(2014) 367 ITR 730 (Del)], whereby the High Court held that it was for the AO to decide whether work or services were actually rendered by the associated enterprise and the expenditure was for business purpose, that the payment must be subjected to transfer pricing study, that no inference could be drawn merely because reimbursement was at cost, that it was at arm|s length.Held: The Supreme Court granted leave to assessee to appeal thereagainst. - Where assessee preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Delhi High Court in ITA No. 475 of 2012, dated 23-5-2014 [(2014) 367 ITR 730 (Del)], whereby the High Court held that it was for the AO to decide whether work or services were actually rendered by the associated enterprise and the expenditure was for business purpose, that the payment must be subjected to transfer pricing study, that no inference could be drawn merely because reimbursement was at cost, that it was at arm|s length, the Supreme Court granted leave to assessee to appeal thereagainst.
DECISION - SLP granted.
:2017 TaxPub(DT) 4872 (SC) - CIT v. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd.
CA No. 16158 of 2017 Dated : 4 October, 2017
SECTION - Section 261 Section 44 Section 115B
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Insurance business Income in shareholders| account--Insurance income vis-a-vis income from other sources
Department filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of Bombay High Court in ITA No. 1045 of 2014, dated 17-10-2016, whereby the High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal holding that surplus available in the shareholders| account was not to be taxed separately as “Income from other sources” as it was only part of income from life insurance business as was clear from the mandate of section 44 of the Act.Held: The Supreme Court granted special leave to revenue to appeal thereagainst. - Where department filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of Bombay High Court in ITA No. 1045 of 2014, dated 17-10-2016, whereby the High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal holding that surplus available in the shareholders| account was not to be taxed separately as “Income from other sources” as it was only part of income from life insurance business as was clear from the mandate of section 44 of the Act., the Supreme Court granted special leave to revenue to appeal thereagainst.
DECISION - SLP granted.
:2017 TaxPub(DT) 4870 (SC) - CIT (Exemptions) v. Shivaji Education Society
SLP (C) D. No. 4412 of 2017 Dated : 13 October, 2017
SECTION - section 261 section 10(23C)(iii)(ab)
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Exemption under ection 10(23C)(iiiab) Educational institution--Whether assessee wholly or substantially financed by Govt.
Department filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of Bombay High Court in ITA No. 20 of 2016, dated 7-6-2016 whereby the High Court held that the main object of the assessee-society was to run educational institutions solely for educational purposes and since 74.61 per cent, of the total receipts flowed from the State Government, the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the provisions of section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act was justified.Held: The Supreme Court granted special leave to department to appeal. - Where department filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of Bombay High court in ITA No. 20 of 2016, dated 7-6-2016, whereby the High Court held that the main object of the assessee-society was to run educational institutions solely for educational purposes and since 74.61 per cent, of the total receipts flowed from the State Government, the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the provisions of section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act was justified, the Supreme Court granted special leave to Revenue Department.
DECISION - Leave granted.
:2017 TaxPub(DT) 4868 (SC) - CIT v. Geeta Gupta Charitable Trust
SLP (C) D. No. 18719 of 2017, C.A. No. 17337 of 2017 & Dated : 23 October, 2017
SECTION - Section 261 Section 12A
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Charitable trust Registration under section 12A--Rejection of application by Commissioner
Department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in ITA No. 106 of 2016, dt. 6-1-2017, whereby the High Court held that the Tribunal was right in directing the grant of registration to the assessee under section 12A holding that the CIT could not have refused registration on the grounds indicated.Held: The Supreme Court granted Special leave. - Where department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in ITA No. 106 of 2016, dt. 6-1-2017, whereby the High Court held that the Tribunal was right in directing the grant of registration to the assessee under section 12A holding that the CIT could not have refused registration on the grounds indicated, the Supreme Court granted Special leave.
DECISION - Leave granted.
:2017 TaxPub(DT) 4561 (SC) - Pr. CIT v. Gujarat State Petronet Ltd
Special Leave No. 5147/2017, CC No(s). 8420/2017 Dated : 23 October, 2017
SECTION - Section 261 Section 14A Rule 8D
Appeal (Supreme Court) - SLP Disallowance under section 14A Expenditure against exempt income
Department filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of Gujarat High Court in Pr. CIT v. Gujarat State Petronet Ltd. (Tax Appeal No. 752 of 2016 dated 7-11-2016), whereby the High Court held that when the AO had not recorded as to how the expenditure claimed by assessee was not satisfactory, it was considered that such assessee had sufficient interest-free fund, out of which the concerned investment had been made and no addition can be made under section 14A read with rule 8D.Held: The Supreme Court condoned the delay and issued notices to respective parties directing their appearances for further hearing on the issue of disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D. - Where Department filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of Gujarat High Court in Pr. CIT v. Gujarat State Petronet Ltd. (Tax Appeal No. 752 of 2016 dated 7-11-2016), whereby the High Court held that when the AO had not recorded as to how the expenditure claimed by assessee was not satisfactory, it was considered that such assessee had sufficient interest- free fund, out of which the concerned investment had been made and no addition can be made under section 14A read with rule 8D, the Supreme Court condoned the delay and issued notices to respective parties directing their appearances for further hearing on the issue of disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D.
DECISION - Notice issued.
12345678910...