Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
8 judgments · newest first · showing 1–8
The case concerned whether a scheduled bank could claim a tax deduction for the broken‑period interest paid when it purchased government securities that are classified as Held‑to‑Maturity (HTM). The bank argued that the securities are stock‑in‑trade, so the broken‑period interest is a revenue …
The Supreme Court examined whether pan masala and gutkha, products containing betel nut and sometimes tobacco, could be taxed under various state sales‑tax statutes despite being listed as exempt under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Court analysed the classification of these products under the …
The respondent, M/s Travancore Sugar & Chemicals Ltd., claimed a deduction for a vend fee of Rs 22,87,512 paid to the Kerala Government, which the assessing officer disallowed under Section 438 of the Income Tax Act because it was not paid before the expiry of the relevant previous year. The …
The case concerned whether employers could claim a deduction under Section 43‑B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for contributions to provident or welfare funds that were paid after the statutory due date but before filing the income‑tax return. The Finance Act, 2003 deleted the second proviso of Section …
The assessee, Shree Man. Junathesware Packing Products and Camphor Works, constructed a cinema theatre and claimed a certain cost in its return for AY 1977‑78. The Income‑Tax Officer (ITO) passed an assessment based on the assessee’s figure because the Departmental Valuation Officer’s (DVO) report …
The non‑resident company Banque Nationale de‑Paris challenged a Super Profits Tax assessment that included interest received on Central and State Government securities. It argued that, under Clause X of Rule 1 of the First Schedule of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, such interest should be excluded …
M/s. Ponds India Ltd. challenged the collection of special excise duty on goods that were manufactured before 28 February 1988 but cleared after 1 March 1988. The Revenue argued that Rule 9A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 made the goods liable to the duty levied under the Finance Act 1988. The …
The Supreme Court examined the validity of Sections 44AC and 206C of the Income‑Tax Act, 1961, which allow tax to be levied on a presumptive basis on traders of specified goods. Petitioners argued that the provisions were ultra‑violes, beyond Parliament’s competence under Schedule VII, Entry 82, …
