You are not Logged in

Direct Taxes - Special Leave Petitions

Search :
  

SLP DETAILS

 
2018 TaxPub(DT) 8119 (SC) : (2019) 260 Taxman 243 (SC) - Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT & Ors.
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 20523/2018 & S.L.P. (C) No. 20528/2018 (IX) Dated : 14 December, 2018
SECTION - Section 261 Section 148
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Reassessment Reasons to believe--Special audit report as basis for reopening--Validity
Assessee preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Bombay High Court in Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 2739 of 2017, dt. 23-2-2018] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 1226 (Bom-HC)], whereby the High Court held that though the orders of assessment passed under section 143(3) have sanctity attached, it did not grant immunity to an assessee from proceedings for reopening of assessment under section 147/148 provided the jurisdictional requirements therein are satisfied, at the time when the reopening notice was issued, therefore, assessee could not take shelter of first proviso to section 147. Held: the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP. - Where the assessee preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Bombay High Court in Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 2739 of 2017, dt. 23-2-2018] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 1226 (Bom-HC)], whereby the High Court held that though the orders of assessment passed under section 143(3) have sanctity attached, it did not grant immunity to an assessee from proceedings for reopening of assessment under section 147/148 provided the jurisdictional requirements therein are satisfied, at the time when the reopening notice was issued, therefore, assessee could not take shelter of first proviso to section 147, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP.
DECISION - SLP dismissed.
2018 TaxPub(DT) 7205 (SC) - Pr. CIT v. Ruby Singla
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 38318/2018 Dated : 13 November, 2018
SECTION - Section 261 Section 80-IC
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition--Deduction under section 80-IC Initial assessment year-- Whether an under taking or an enterprise (Unit) established after 7-1-2003,carrying out "substantial expension" within, the specified window period, i.e., between 7-1-2003 and 1-4-2012, would be entitled to deduction on profits @ 100%, under section 80-IC
Department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Ruby Singla v. Pr. CIT ITA No. 15 of 2018, dt. 26-4-2018] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 7206 (HP-HC), whereby the High Court disposed of the issues involved in terms of decision rendered in ITA No. 20 of 2015, titled as M/s. Stovekraft India v. CIT decided on 28-11-2017 : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 5182 (HP-HC), by as such, making the directions in M/s. Stovekraft India applicable mutatis mutandis, also to the assessee|s appeal.Held: The Supreme Court condoned delay and dismissed the SLP on the ground of low tax effect, leaving the question of law open. - Where the department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Himachal Pradesh, High Court in Ruby Singla v. Pr. CIT ITA No. 15 of 2018, dt. 26-4-2018] : 2018 TaxPub9DT) 7206 (HP-HC), whereby the High Court disposed of the issues involved in terms of decision rendered in ITA No. 20 of 2015, titled as M/s. Stovekraft India v. CIT decided on 28-11-2017 : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 5182 (HP-HC), by as such, making the directions in M/s. Stovekraft India applicable mutatis mutandis, also to the assessee|s appeal, the Supreme Court condoned delay and dismissed the SLP on the ground of low tax effect, leaving the question of law open.
DECISION - SLP dismissed.
2018 TaxPub(DT) 7548 (SC) - Pr. CIT v. Lakshminarayana Mining Company
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.41119/2018 Dated : 26 November, 2018
SECTION - Section 261
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Deduction under section 10B 100 per cent export-oriented undertaking--Production on non-EOU, whether eligible
Department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Karnataka High Court in Pr. CIT v. Lakshminarayana Mining Co. [ITA No. 715/2017 c/w ITA No. 714/2017 & ITA No. 716/2017, dt. 6-4-2018] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 1918 (Karn-HC], whereby the High Court held that the mere fact that the |SESA Plant| was situated outside the bonded area was of no legal significance as the benefit of customs bonding was only for the limited purpose of granting benefit as regards customs and excise duty, that the entitlement of deduction under the IT Act was to be looked into independently and said benefit would stand or fall on the applicability of section 10B. that mere location of the |SESA Plant| outside the EOU and customs bonded area was not a disqualification to claim deduction under section 10B.Held: The Supreme Court condoned delay and not finding any reason to interfere in the matter, dismissed the SLP. - Where the department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Karnataka High Court in Pr. CIT v. Lakshminarayana Mining Co. [ITA No. 715/2017 c/w ITA No. 714/2017 & ITA No. 716/2017, dt. 6-4-2018] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 1918 (Karn-HC], whereby the High Court held that the mere fact that the |SESA Plant| was situated outside the bonded area was of no legal significance as the benefit of customs bonding was only for the limited purpose of granting benefit as regards customs and excise duty, that the entitlement of deduction under the IT Act was to be looked into independently and said benefit would stand or fall on the applicability of section 10B , that mere location of the |SESA Plant| outside the EOU and customs bonded area was not a disqualification to claim deduction under section 10B, the Supreme Court condoned delay and not finding any reason to interfere in the matter, dismissed the SLP.
DECISION - SLP dismissed.
2018 TaxPub(DT) 7550 (SC) - CIT v. Delhi Public School Society
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 40502/2018 Dated : 26 November, 2018
SECTION - Section 261 section 10(23C)(n)
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Exemption under section 10(23C(vi) Educational institution--Maintenance of satellite schools
Department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Delhi High Court in Director of IT (Exemption) v. Delhi Public School Society [ITA Nos. 1086 of 2005 & 501, 521, 605 of 2008 & Ors., dt. 3-4-2018] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 1814 (Del-HC), whereby the High Court held that assessee - society was maintaining satellite schools in furtherance of education joint venture agreement with an educational purpose that also qualified as a |charitable purpose| within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act and was not in contravention of section 11(4A) and thus, if it was held that objected activity was indeed commercial in nature, nevertheless, realiation of profit by the assessee was through an activity incidental to dominant educational purpose that its memorandum of associations set out, and was, in turn, being channelled back into the maintenance and management of the same schools, thus, fulfilling the objectives assessee had set out in its memorandum, therefore, disallowance of exemption was not justified.Held: The Supreme Court condoned delay and dismissed the SLP. - Where the department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Delhi High Court in Director of IT (Exemption) v. Delhi Public School Society [ITA Nos. 1986 of 2005 & 501, 521, 605 of 2008 & Ors., dt. 3-4-2018] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 1814 (Del-HC), whereby the High Court held that assessee - society was maintaining satellite schools in furtherance of education joint venture agreement with an educational purpose that also qualified as a |charitable purpose| within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act and was not in contravention of section 11(4A) and thus, if it was held that objected activity was indeed commercial in nature, nevertheless, realization of profit by the assessee was through an activity incidental to dominant educational purpose that its memorandum of associations set out, and was in turn being channelled back into the maintenance and management of the same schools, thus, fulfilling the objectives assessee had set out in its memorandum, therefore, disallowance of exemption was not justified, the Supreme Court condoned delay and dismissed the SLP
DECISION - SLP dismissed.
2019 TaxPub(DT) 1 (SC) - CIT & Anr. v. State Bank of Mysore
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 42780/2018, Diary No. 44714/2018 Dated : 14 December, 2018
SECTION - Section 261 Section 271(1)(c)
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Penalty under section 271(1)(c) Notice issued by AO without specifying grounds of penalty--Validity
Department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Karnataka High Court in CIT & Anr. v. State Bank of Mysore [ITA No. 132/2016, dt. 11-10-2017] : 2019 TaxPub)DT) 9 (Karn-HC), whereby the High Court held that from perusal of notice, it was very much obvious that AO did not specify the grounds on which penalty was imposed, that AO was required to specify that on which limb of section 271(1)(c), the penalty proceedings were initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, that the notice, in fact, was in standard proforma without the irrelevant clauses therein being struck off, thus, penalty was deleted.Held: The Supreme Court observed that there was a delay of 310 days and 324 days in preferring these special leave petitions respectively which has not been satisfactiorily explained, therefore, the court refused to condone the delay and dismissed the special leave petitions on this short ground. - Where the Department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Karnataka High Court in CIT & Anr. v. State Bank of Mysore [ITA No. 132/2016, dt. 11-10-2017] : 2019 Tax Puc)DT) 9 (Karn-HC), whereby the High Court held that from perusal of notice, it was very much obvious that AO did not specify the grounds on which penalty was imposed, that AO was required to specify that on which limb of section 271(1)(c), the penalty proceedings were initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, that the notice, in fact, was in standard proforma without the irrelevant clauses therein being struck off, thus, penalty was deleted, the Supreme Court observed that there was a delay of 310 days and 324 days in preferring these special leave petitions respectively which has not been satisfactorily explained, therefore, the court refused to condone the delay and dismissed the special leave petitions on this short ground.
DECISION - SLP dismissed.
2018 TaxPub(DT) 7542 (SC) : (2018) 259 Taxman 317 (SC) - Dy. CIT v. Qx Kpo Services (P.) Ltd.
SLP (Civil) Diary No(s). 36238 of 2018 Dated : 2 November, 2018
SECTION - Section 261 Section 10B Section 148
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Reassessment Change of opinion--Issue examined in original assessment proceedings
Department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Gujarat High Court in QX KPO Services (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [Special Civil Application No. 22599 of 2017, dt. 13-3-2018] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 4366 (Guj), whereby the High Court held that when a particular claim was scrutinized by the AO at the time of original assessment, as such, he could not reopen such assessed case in order to examine another facet of the same claim.Held: The Supreme Court condoned delay and dismissed the SLP. - Where the department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Gujarat High Court in QX KPO Services (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [Special Civil Application No. 22599 of 2017, dt. 13-3-2018] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 4366 (Guj), whereby the High Court held that when a particular claim was scrutinized by the AO at the time of original assessment, as such, he could not reopen such assessed case in order to examine another facet of the same claim, the Supreme Court condoned delay and dismissed the SLP.
DECISION - SLP dismissed.
2019 TaxPub(DT) 299 (SC) : (2019) 261 Taxman 161 (SC) - Dy. CIT v. Metal Closures (P) Ltd.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No (s). 42733/2018 Dated : 3 January, 2019
SECTION - Section 261 Section 10B
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Deduction under section 10B 100 per cent Export Oriented Undertaking--Allowability--|Deemed Export| of goods
Department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Karnataka High Court in Metal Closures (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [ITA Nos. 24-25/2015 c/w ITA Nos. 22-23/2015, ITA Nos. 379-381/2016, dt. 12-6-2018} : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 297 (Karn-HC)], whereby the High Court held that in the case of M/s. Tata Elxsi Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 2015 TaxPub(DT) 5191 (Karn-HC), it was held that assessee was entitled to deduction under section 10B of the Act in respect of the |Deemed export| also and similarly following the said judgment, the issue was also decided in favour of the assessee in case of Pr. CIT v. International Stones India (P) Ltd. [ITA No. 564/2016, dt. 12-6-2018} : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 4058 (Karn-HC), that the present assessee, who was also similarly situated, since the fact of |deemed export| made by it through a third party was not in dispute, also deserves to get the same relief and therefore, the present appeal filed by assessee deserves to be allowed.Held: The Supreme Court condoned delay and dismissed the SLP. - Where the department/preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Karnataka High Court in Metal Closures (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [ITA Nos. 24-25/2015 c/w ITA Nos. 22-23/2015, ITA Nos. 379-381/2016, dt. 12-6-2018] : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 297 (Karn-HC), whereby the High Court held that in the case of M/s. Tata Elxsi Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 2015 TaxPub(DT) 5191 (Karn-HC), it was held that assessee was entitled to deduction under section 10B of the Act in respect of the |Deemed export| also and similarly following the said judgment, the issue was also decided in favour of the assessee in case of Pr. CIT v. International Stones India (P) Ltd. [ITA No. 564/2016, dt. 12-6-2018} : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 4058 (Karn-HC)], that the present assessee, who was also similarly situated, since the fact of |deemed export| made by it through a third party was not in dispute, also deserves to get the same relief and therefore, the present appeal filed by assessee deserves to be allowed, the Supreme Court condoned delay and dismissed the SLP.
DECISION - SLP dismissed.
2018 TaxPub(DT) 7186 (SC) - Asstt. CIT v. Leo Fasteners
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 3953, 4193/2018 (XII) Dated : 16 November, 2018
SECTION - Section 261 Section 80-IA Section 80-IB
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Deduction under sections 80-IA and 80-IB Deduction under section 80-IB--Profits and gains from industrial undertakings in specified States--Splitting up of old undertaking or reconstruction of existing business vis-a-vis new industrial undertaking
Department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Madras High Court in Asstt. CIT v. Leo Fasteners [Tax Case (Appeal) Nos. 533 to 538 of 2010, 1217 to 1220 of 2010 and 787 & 788 of 2014, dt. 10-7-2017] : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1884 (Mad-HC), whereby the High Court held that the mere fact that nut blanks were purchased from Unit-I could not be a reason to deny deduction under section 80-IB, vis-a-vis Unit II, therefore, the deduction was to be made available to the assessee vis-a-vis unit II, as it fits the attributes of an industrial undertaking and not to the assessee per se.Held: The Supreme Court condoned delay and dismissed the SLP. - Where the department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Madras High Court in Asstt. CIT v. Leo Fasteners [Tax Case (Appeal) Nos. 533 to 538 of 2010, 1217 to 1220 of 2010 & 787 and 788 of 2014, dt. 10-7-2017] : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1884 (Mad-HC), whereby the High Court held that the mere fact that nut blanks were purchased from Unit-I could not be a reason to deny deduction under section 80-IB, vis-a-vis Unit II, therefore, the deduction was to be made available to the assessee vis-a-vis Unit II, as it fits the attributes of an industrial undertaking and not to the assessee per se, the Supreme Court condoned delay and dismissed the SLP.
DECISION - SLP dismissed.
2018 TaxPub(DT) 7733 (SC) : (2019) 261 Taxman 168 (SC) - CIT v. Adinath Builders (P) Ltd.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 40471/2018 & Diary No. 40517/2018, Diary No. 42772/2018 Dated : 3 December, 2018
SECTION - Section 261 Section 271D Section 273B
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Penalty under section 271D Contravention of section 269SS--Reasonable cause for accepting of deposits through journal entries
Department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Bombay High court in CIT v. Ajitnath Hi-Tech Builders (P) Ltd. & Ors. ITA Nos. 171, 172, 202, 218 & 219 of 2015, dated 6-2-2018, whereby the High Court following the judgment in CIT v. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 270 (Bom) rendered on 12-6-2012 wherein it was held that the receiving of deposits or loans through journal entries would certainly be hit by section 269SS, held that prior to the decision of the court, there was reasonable cause for the assessee to receive deposit or loan through journal entries, and Tribunal had taken a possible view in the facts of the case and rightly deleted the penalty imposed under section 271D.Held: The Supreme Court condoned delay and dismissed the SLP. - Where the Department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Ajitnath Hi-Tech Builders (P) Ltd. & Ors. ITA Nos. 171, 172, 202, 218 & 219 of 2015, dated 6-2-2018, whereby the High Court following the judgment in CIT v. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 270 (Bom) (rendered on 12-6-2012) wherein it was held that the receiving of deposits or loans through journal entries would certainly be hit by section 269SS, held that prior to the decision of the court, there was reasonable cause for the assessee to receive deposit or loan through journal entries, and Tribunal had taken a possible view in the facts of the case and rightly deleted the penalty imposed under section 271D, the Supreme Court condoned delay and dismissed the SLP.
DECISION - SLP dismissed.
2018 TaxPub(DT) 7544 (SC) - Addl. CIT v. GVK Jaipur Kishangarh Expressway (P) Ltd.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 33369/2018 Dated : 26 November, 2018
SECTION - Section 261 Section 37 Sections 80G, 234B & 234C
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition Provision and contingent liability Interest under sections 234B and 234C--Rejection of claim under section 80G
Department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in GVK Jaipur Kishangarh Expressway Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [DB Income Tax Appeal No. 622/2009, DB Income Tax Appeal No. 124/2010, dt. 16-11-2017] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 7543 (Raj-HC), whereby the High Court held that: (i) In view of the provision where contingent liability was made in view of the revised return filed by the assessee, the Tribunal had seriously committed an error in rejecting the claim of the present assessee. (ii) Where assessee suffered loss Tribunal was justified in charging interest under sections 234B and 234C. (iii) Merely because the provision/liability was shown, rejection of claim under section 80G, was contrary to decision referred to by assessee. (iv) Even this court while deciding the matter had taken leave encashment as liability. (v) Regarding the expenses incurred for protection of the employees and the other thereat from the truck owners the same had been construed as business expenditure. (vi) Since assessee had paid amount for taking over the management of the company, this would be a capital gain for the other company and the Tribunal had not committed any error in allowing the expenses (vii) The Tribunal had not committed any error in allowing the expenses regarding removal of trees tampling or removal of debris and other expenses, the Supreme Court condoned delay and dismissed the SLP on ground of low tax effect. - Where the department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in GVK Jaipur Kishangarh Expressway Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [DB Income Tax Appeal No. 622/2009, DB Income Tax Appeal No. 124/2010, dt. 16-11-2017] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 7543 (Raj-HC), whereby the High Court held that: (i) In view of the provision where contingent liability was made in view of the revised return filed by the assessee, the Tribunal had seriously committed an error in rejecting the claim of the present assessee. (ii) Where assessee suffered loss, Tribunal was justified in charging interest under sections 234B and 234C. (iii) Merely because the provision/liability was shown, rejection of claim under section 80G, was contrary to decision referred to by assessee. (iv) Even this court while deciding the matter had taken leave encashment as liability. (v) Regarding the expenses incurred for protection of the employees and the other thereat from the truck owners the same had been construed as business expenditure. (vi) Since assessee had paid amount for taking over the management of the company, this would be a capital gain for the other company and the Tribunal had not committed any error in allowing the expenses. (vii) The Tribunal had not committed any error in allowing the expenses regarding removal of trees tampling or removal of debris and other expenses, the Supreme Court condoned delay and dismissed the SLP on ground of low tax effect.
DECISION - SLP dismissed.
12345678910...