Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Income Tax Act, 1961

1,056 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 1,001–1,056.

SAKTHI TRADING CO.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

2001 INSC 3342 August 2001Appeal(s) allowed

Sakthi Trading Co., a partnership firm, was dissolved on the death of one partner but was immediately reconstituted with the remaining partners, so the business continued without interruption. The Income‑Tax Officer had valued the closing stock on the dissolution date at the usual "cost or market, whichever is lower" m

SUNIL VASUDEVA & ORS.versusSUNDAR GUPTA & ORS.

2019 INSC 7162 July 2019Dismissed

The dispute concerned a Delhi property that had been sold at a public auction by the Income Tax Department in 1964 to V.N. Vasudeva. The respondents, grandchildren of the original owner, challenged the sale through a civil suit and a writ petition, while the appellants, heirs of the lawyer who bought the property, defe

SUNDAR GUPTA & ORS.versusSUNIL VASUDEVA & ORS.

2019 INSC 7172 July 2019Dismissed

In Sundar Gupta & Ors. v. Sunil Vasudeva & Ors., a contempt petition (C) No. 1721 of 2017 was filed alleging contempt of the Supreme Court under Section 293 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petition arose from proceedings in I.A. No. 4 of 2017 and Civil Appeal No. 5140 of 2019, which were also the subject of Special Le

COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2018 INSC 5682 July 2018Disposed off

The petitioners, including Common Cause, challenged the appointments of K.V. Chowdary as Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) and T.M. Bhasin as Vigilance Commissioner (VC) on the ground that the selections violated the constitutional principles of impeccable and institutional integrity. They alleged that Chowdary had

OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusCHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS.

2018 INSC 5592 July 2018Dismissed

The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA), created under the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, challenged income‑tax notices on the ground that it qualified as a "local authority" and was therefore exempt under section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended by the Finance Act, 2002. The ce

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS) KANPUR AND ANR.versusCANARA BANK

2018 INSC 5632 July 2018Dismissed

Canara Bank paid interest on fixed deposits to the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) without deducting tax at source under Section 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer treated the bank as a defaulter and issued a demand notice, which the bank appealed, relying on Notification dated 2

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAIversusS. AJIT KUMAR

2018 INSC 4392 May 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai) conducted a search of the assessee S. Ajit Kumar’s premises on 17 July 2002 and, on the same day, a survey of the builder, Elegant Constructions and Interiors Ltd., whose premises revealed a cash payment of Rs 95.16 lakhs that had not been accounted for. The Assessing O

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT CENTRALversusSAURASTHRA CEMENT & CHEM. INDUSTRIES LTD.

2016 INSC 3582 May 2016Disposed off

The case concerned the assessment of M/s Saurashtra Cement for AY 1981-82. The Assessing Officer issued a draft assessment on 13‑03‑1984 and forwarded it to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) under Section 1448. The IAC gave directions on 31‑08‑1984, after which the final assessment order was passed on 01‑09‑1

UNION OF INDIAversusASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANR.

2002 INSC 2532 May 2002Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Election Commission could be directed to require candidates to disclose criminal cases, assets, liabilities and educational qualifications, as ordered by the Delhi High Court, despite the absence of a specific provision in the Representation of the People Act, 1951 or the Conduct

M/S. SUNDARAM CLAYTON LTD. ETC.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

1996 INSC 6112 May 1996Dismissed

Sundaram Clayton Ltd. issued 20,40,000 worth of bonus shares by capitalising its general reserves in the assessment year 1971-72 and claimed that the bonus issue should be proportionately added to its share capital for the purpose of computing capital under Rule 3 of Schedule II of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JULLUNDURversusAJANTA ELECTRICALS, PUNJAB

1995 INSC 3292 May 1995Dismissed

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jullundur issued notices under Section 139(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Ajanta Electricals and its partners, requiring them to file returns within 30 days. The assessees filed their returns and applications for extension of time after the due dates, leading the Income Tax Officer to

GUJARAT TRAVANCORE AGENCY, COCHINversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KERALA, ERNAKULAM

1989 INSC 1692 May 1989Dismissed

Gujarat Travancore Agency, a registered firm, failed to file its income‑tax returns for assessment years 1965‑66 and 1966‑67 within the statutory time limits. After notices under section 139(2) were served, the firm filed the returns and the Income‑Tax Officer imposed penalties under section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax

ELEL HOTELS AND INVESTMENTS LIMITED AND ANR. ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA

1989 INSC 1642 May 1989Dismissed

Elel Hotels and Investments Ltd. and other hoteliers challenged the Hotel Receipts Tax Act, 1980, which imposed a 15% tax on the gross receipts of hotels whose room charges were Rs.75 or more per day per individual. The petitioners argued that the Act was beyond Union legislative competence, falling under the State Lis

CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, GUJARAT I, AHMEDABAD.versusM.A. MERCHANT ACCOUNTABLE PERSON OF LATE SHRI A.G MERCHANT, MAJIRAJWADI ROAD, BHAVNAGAR, ETC.

1989 INSC 1752 May 1989Dismissed

The deceased A.G. Merchant died in 1959 and the accountable persons filed estate duty returns, resulting in an assessment on 26 February 1960 under the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The Estate Duty (Amendment) Act, 1958 repealed sections 56‑65 and introduced a new Section 59, effective 1 July 1960, to allow reassessment of pr

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

1989 INSC 1682 May 1989Directions issued

Electronics Corporation of India Ltd entered into an agreement with a Norwegian firm for technical services and sought a No Objection Certificate under s.195(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to remit payments without tax deduction. The Commissioner rejected the application, holding that s.9(1)(vii) deemed the fees to acc

CHUHARMAL S/0 TAKARMAL MOHNANIversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, M.P., BHOPAL

1988 INSC 1262 May 1988Dismissed

The petitioner, Chuharmal, filed an income‑tax return for AY 1974‑75 showing a total income of Rs 3,113. During a customs search in May 1973, 565 foreign watches valued at Rs 87,455 were seized from his bedroom. The Income‑Tax Officer issued notices under s.69A of the Income Tax Act to treat the value of the watches as

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, BOMBAYversusVANAZ ENGINEERING (P) LTD., BOMBAY

1986 INSC 1042 May 1986Appeal(s) allowed

Vanaz Engineering (P) Ltd. introduced a gratuity scheme in mid‑1970 and, based on an actuarial report, provisioned Rs 2,11,305 as a liability as of 31 December 1970. The Income‑Tax Officer allowed only Rs 27,249, the difference between the provision and the liability for 1969, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner a

JYOTENDRASINHJIversusS.L. TRIPATHI AND ORS.

1993 INSC 1382 April 1993Dismissed

The appellant's father created three U.S. and two U.K. settlement trusts for family members and reported the trusts' income in his Indian tax returns from 1964‑65 to 1969‑70. After his death in 1969, the appellant filed returns for 1970‑71 including the same income and later contended that the trusts were discretionary

ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.versusRADHEY SHYAM PANDEY

2020 INSC 2382 March 2020Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether employees who retired under the State Bank of India Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) of 2000 and had completed fifteen years of service were entitled to a proportionate pension under the SBI Employees' Pension Fund Rules. The Court held that the Central Board of Directors' approval o

THESTOCKEXCHANGE,AHMEDABADversusASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD

2001 INSC 1302 March 2001

The Ahmedabad Stock Exchange sought to dispose of the membership of its deceased member, Rajesh Shah, after his heirs declared they could not meet his liabilities. The Exchange declared him a deemed defaulter and exercised its right under the Exchange Rules to vest the membership in the Exchange and sell it. The Assist

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOWversusU.P. FOREST CORPORATION

1998 INSC 1202 March 1998Appeal(s) allowed

The Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation claimed exemption from income tax on the ground that it was a "local authority" under Section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and alternatively that it was a charitable institution under Section 11(1). The assessing officer rejected the claim, the Commissioner of Income Tax (App

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITEDversusEMCO LIMITED & OTHERS

2016 INSC 1242 February 2016Appeal(s) allowed

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd (GUVNL) entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with EMCO Ltd for a 5 MW solar project, the tariff being fixed by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (GERC) in its first tariff order of 29 Jan 2010, which assumed the benefit of accelerated depreciation under Section 32 of th

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR.versusM/S. HOTEL BLUE MOON

2010 INSC 752 February 2010Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 must be served within the prescribed time before a block assessment can be framed under Chapter XIV‑B for undisclosed income discovered through a search under Section 132. The Court held that the special provisions of Chapter X

THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIAversusVIMAL KUMAR SURANA AND ANOTHER

2010 INSC 8401 December 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Vimal Kumar Surana, who had passed the Chartered Accountant examination but was not a member of the Institute, impersonated a chartered accountant, prepared audit reports and forged the Institute's seal before tax authorities. The Institute filed a criminal complaint alleging offences under the Chartered Accountants Ac

M/S. K. GOVINDAN AND SONSversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COCHIN

2000 INSC 5611 December 2000Dismissed

The assessee, K. Govindan & Sons, filed a return for AY 1984‑85 in response to a notice under Section 148. The assessing officer levied interest under Section 139(8) and Section 217, which the assessee contested on the ground that the assessment was not a "regular assessment" within the meaning of Section 2(40) and the

M/S. K. LAKSHMANYA AND COMPANYversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

2017 INSC 10711 November 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Mis. K. Lakshmanya & Co., a partnership, paid interest under Sections 234(A)-(C) for assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95 and applied to the Settlement Commission to have that interest waived. The Commission, relying on a CBDT circular, partially waived the interest, after which the Assessing Officer refused to grant i

RAJESH KUMAR AND ORS.versusD.C.I.T. AND ORS.

2006 INSC 7801 November 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, assessees under the Income Tax Act, were subjected to a raid that uncovered two separate sets of books of accounts, prompting the Deputy Commissioner to propose a special audit under Section 142(2A). The Commissioner approved the proposal without giving the appellants any notice or opportunity to be hea

DISTT. REGISTRAR & COLLECTOR, HYDERABAD AND ANR.versusCANARA BANK ETC.

2004 INSC 6311 November 2004Dismissed

The Andhra Pradesh amendment of Section 73 of the Indian Stamp Act gave the Collector power to inspect, seize and impound any registers, books or documents, including those in banks, without any procedural safeguards. The High Court struck down this provision as unconstitutional, and the State appealed. The Supreme Cou

SCIENTIFIC ENGLNEERING HOUSE (P) LTD.versusCOMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH

1985 INSC 2351 November 1985Appeal(s) allowed

Scientific Engineering House (P) Ltd. entered into two 1961 collaboration agreements with Metrimpex Hungarian Trading Company to obtain technical know‑how for manufacturing microscopes and theodolites. The foreign collaborator supplied a complete set of drawings, designs, charts, plans and related literature (the "docu

B.M. MALANIversusCOMMR. OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

2008 INSC 11171 October 2008Appeal(s) allowed

B.M. Malani, a money‑lender who also traded in shares, had shares and a demand draft seized during a raid. He offered to pay his tax liability by selling the seized shares and requested the Income‑Tax Authority to dispose of them, but the request was ignored. The Department later levied interest under s.220(2) of the I

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOTversusSHATRUSAILYA DIGVIJAYSINGH JADEJA

2005 INSC 3961 September 2005Dismissed

The respondent‑assessee, Shatrusail Ya Digvijay Singh Jadeja, had tax assessments for years 1984‑85 to 1991‑92 under the Income Tax Act and the Wealth Tax Act, which were appealed but dismissed in 1992‑93 for failure to pre‑deposit tax. After the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 introduced the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (effect

T.K. GINARAJANversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,COCHIN, KERA LA

2013 INSC 5081 August 2013Dismissed

The appellant, a Development Officer of Life Insurance Corporation of India, claimed a deduction of 40% of his incentive bonus in his income‑tax returns, arguing that the amount represented expenses incurred in canvassing business. The Income Tax authorities rejected the claim, holding that the bonus formed part of his

BUILDERS ASSOCIATIONS OF INDIAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1994 INSC 2941 August 1994Dismissed

The Builders Associations of India filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. N.C. Budharaja & Co., which held that the word “construction” in Section 32A(2)(b)(iii) of the Income‑Tax Act applies only to movable items such as ships and not to

OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITEDversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX &ANR.

2015 INSC 4461 July 2015Dismissed

The Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd (ONGC) challenged the assessment of surtax on its agreements with foreign companies, contending that the exemption notification GSR 307(E) dated 31‑03‑1983 under Section 24AA of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, covered both categories of foreign companies – those with dire

SH. SANJEEV LAL ETC.ETC.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH & ANR.

2014 INSC 4501 July 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants entered into an agreement to sell their residential house on 27 December 2002 and purchased another house on 30 April 2003. A court order later restrained them from dealing with the property, preventing execution of the sale deed until the order was vacated in May 2004; the deed was finally registered on

DISTRIBUTORS (BARODA) PVT. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND TWO ORS.

1985 INSC 1431 July 1985Dismissed

Distributors (Baroda) Ltd., an investment company, claimed a deduction under Section 80M of the Income Tax Act for inter‑corporate dividends based on the full amount of dividends received, contrary to the Revenue’s view that the deduction should be calculated on dividend income as computed under the Act. The Supreme Co

AMAN BHATIAversusSTATE (GNCT OF DELHI)

2025 INSC 6181 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a licensed stamp vendor, was caught in a sting operation after demanding Rs 12 for a Rs 10 stamp paper and was convicted under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The key issue was whether a licensed stamp vendor qualifies as a “public servant” under Section 2(c)(i)

MERCANTILE BANK LTD., BOMBAYversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY CITY-III

2006 INSC 2741 May 2006Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined two questions arising from Mercantile Bank Ltd.'s assessment for AY 1978‑79. First, it held that interest on doubtful advances kept in a suspense account was not assessable income, as the 1952 Central Board of Direct Taxes circular exempted such interest when there was no real probability of

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LUCKNOWversusBAZPUR CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY LTD.

1989 INSC 1601 May 1989Appeal(s) allowed

The Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd., a cooperative society, required its producer‑shareholders to deposit amounts into a 'Loss Equalisation & Capital Redemption Reserve Fund' under a bye‑law. The deposits were used for the society’s business, including converting partly paid shares to fully paid shares and repay

JEYAR CONSULTANT & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS

2015 INSC 2781 April 2015Dismissed

JEYAR Consultant & Investment Pvt. Ltd., which exported marine products and also earned domestic income from dividends, interest, brokerage and share transactions, claimed a deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act for profits from its export business. The Assessing Officer denied the deduction because the e

ORISSA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN. ETC.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

1999 INSC 1531 April 1999Dismissed

The Orissa State Warehousing Corporation, a statutory body under the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962, earned interest on fixed deposits placed with banks. The Income‑Tax Officer added this interest to its total income, holding that it was not covered by the exemption in section 10(29) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The

M/S. VIJAY INDUSTRIESversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

2019 INSC 2961 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

M/s. Vijay Industries appealed against the Commissioner of Income Tax seeking a 20% deduction under Section 80HH for the assessment years 1979‑80 and 1980‑81. The dispute centered on whether the deduction should be calculated on gross profits and gains (before depreciation, unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowa

GVK INDS. LTD. & ANR.versusTHE INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR.

2011 INSC 1671 March 2011Reference answered

GVK Industries Ltd. challenged a tax order that invoked sections 9(1)(i) and 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arguing that the provisions were unconstitutional for lacking a nexus with India. The High Court upheld the tax provision, relying on the ECIL judgment, prompting a Supreme Court reference to a Constit

VISHWANATH CHATURVEDIversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2007 INSC 2361 March 2007Disposed off

The petitioner filed a public interest litigation under Article 32 alleging that the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Mulayam Singh Yadav, and his family acquired assets disproportionate to their known sources of income, violating the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petition sought a writ of mandamus directing

AHMEDABAD MANUFACTURING AND CALICO PRINTING CO. LTD. AND ANR.versusA.V. JOSHI

1996 INSC 3431 March 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. set up two new industrial undertakings – a polyester fibre plant (1975‑76) and a Sulzer plant (1976‑77) – and claimed relief under Section 80K of the Income Tax Act, 1961, together with a certificate under Section 197(3) for dividend exemption in the assessment year

M/S P.R. DEB AND ASSOCIATESversusSUNANDA ROY

1996 INSC 3471 March 1996Disposed off

The appellant, owner of a plot in South Calcutta, entered into a sale agreement with the respondent for Rs 9 lakhs, requiring an initial payment of Rs 25,000 and a further Rs 4 lakhs within five months, the latter being essential for the appellant to obtain alternative accommodation. The respondent failed to pay the Rs

C.W.S. (INDIA) LIMITEDversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

1994 INSC 981 March 1994Dismissed

The appellants challenged the disallowance of certain expenditures under Sections 40(a)(v) and 40A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arguing that the ceiling on such expenditures should not apply to assets used by an employee unless the employee also received a benefit under clause (i). The Supreme Court examined the lan

MRS. ARUNDHATI BALKRISHNAversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

1989 INSC 741 March 1989Dismissed

Mrs. Arundhati Balkrishna, a beneficiary of the Shrimati Arundhati Balkrishna Trust, claimed deductions for interest paid by the trust on amounts withdrawn from an estate account. The Income Tax Officer disallowed part of the interest, holding that some withdrawals were for personal expenses. The assessee appealed to t

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 & ANR.versusM/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT. LTD.

2025 INSC 381 January 2025Dismissed

M/s Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd. held a 99.88% share in Asianet News Network Pvt. Ltd. which reduced its share capital from 15,35,05,750 to 10,000 shares, proportionately reducing Jupiter's holding to 9,988 shares and receiving Rs. 3,17,83,474 as consideration. The Revenue argued that this reduction did not constitute a "

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search