Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Income Tax Rules

11 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

Y. RAMANJANEYULUversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

1985 INSC 7529 March 1985Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a civil servant in the Cooperative Societies department, claimed that Government Order No. 559 (May 4, 1961) entitled him to a promotion to Deputy Registrar in 1965 under the principle of reservation extended to all cadres. He filed a representation petition in 1977, which the Administrative Tribunal dis

K.C. JOSHIversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1985 INSC 9823 April 1985Appeal(s) allowed

K.C. Joshi was appointed as Store Keeper in the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) and, after completing his probation, was placed on the regular establishment. He was an active trade‑union worker and, following union actions, his services were terminated on 29 December 1967 with one month’s pay in lieu of notice, t

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAIversusM/S I-VEN INTERACTIVE LIMITED, MUMBAI

2019 INSC 116618 October 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The assessee filed its return for AY 2006-07 under the E‑Module scheme and the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act on 5 Oct 2007 to the address recorded in the PAN database. The assessee claimed that it had changed its registered address and that the notice was therefore not ser

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIHAR, PATNAversusAMAR SINGH GOWAMAL & SONS, JHARIA, DHANBAD

1986 INSC 14617 July 1986Dismissed

The firm Amar Singh Gowamal & Sons, originally registered under the Income Tax Act, 1922 up to assessment year 1961‑62, altered its partnership constitution on 8 November 1961. It applied for registration under the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 29 September 1962 (Form UA). The Income‑Tax Officer rejected the application invo

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXversusMAHENDRA MILLS

2000 INSC 14715 March 2000Dismissed

Mahendra Mills, a company, did not claim depreciation in its return for the assessment year 1974-75 and also failed to furnish the prescribed particulars under Section 34 of the Income‑Tax Act. The Income‑Tax Officer nevertheless allowed a depreciation deduction, which was set aside by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A

MURARI MOHAN DEBversusTHE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA & ORS.

1985 INSC 8210 April 1985Appeal(s) allowed

Murari Mohan Deb, a Class IV forester of the Tripura Government, was compulsorily retired in 1962 by the Chief Forest Officer. He challenged the order, alleging denial of a fair hearing and violation of natural‑justice principles. The respondents contended that compulsory retirement is not a dismissal under Art. 311(2)

M/S. DIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MUMBAIversusM/S. MORGAN STANLEY & CO.

2007 INSC 7359 July 2007Case Partly allowed

Morgan Stanley & Co. (MSCo) sought an advance ruling on whether it had a permanent establishment (PE) in India through its Indian subsidiary, Morgan Stanley Advantage Services Pvt Ltd (MSAS), and on the appropriate transfer pricing method for the services rendered. The Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) held that MSCo

RAMESH BHAI J. PATEL ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA

2000 INSC 5736 December 2000Dismissed

The appellants, assessors under the Income Tax Act, challenged the interpretation of Section 269UA(b) regarding the calculation of "apparent consideration" for immovable property transferred to the Central Government. They argued that the discount should be computed for the period between the Government's payment of th

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAMversusJOSEPH VALAKUZHY

2008 INSC 5876 May 2008Dismissed

The appellant, the Commissioner of Income Tax, challenged the assessment of film producer Joseph Valakuzhy who claimed a carry‑forward of amortisation expenses under Rule 9A of the Income Tax Rules for a feature film that was not exhibited for 180 days and did not recover its production cost. The revenue argued that th

M/S. PALAM GAS SERVICEversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

2017 INSC 4323 May 2017Dismissed

Mis. Palam Gas Service, engaged in LPG cylinder business, received freight payments from Indian Oil and paid subcontractors but failed to deduct tax at source under Section 194C. The Assessing Officer disallowed the subcontractor payments as per Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant challenged th

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