Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Income Tax Rules, 1962

52 judgments · newest first · showing 1–52

Kaushal Kumar SinghversusPrincipal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)

ALLOWED

The petitioners, including a partnership firm, an HUF, and a company, filed income tax returns for assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14 and claimed credit for tax deducted at source (TDS) by Punjab National Bank and other deductors. The TDS was not reflected in Form 26AS, so the Income Tax Department …

Kaushal Kumar Singh HUFversusPrincipal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)

ALLOWED

The petitioners, a partnership firm, a Hindu Undivided Family and a private limited company, filed multiple writ petitions alleging that the Income Tax Department failed to credit Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) shown in Form 16A certificates issued by Punjab National Bank, despite the bank’s …

Sharda ConstructionversusPrincipal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS),

ALLOWED

The petitioners, assessees for assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14, claimed credit for tax deducted at source (TDS) by Punjab National Bank and other deductors, supported by Form 16A certificates. The TDS amounts were not reflected in Form 26AS on the Income Tax Department portal, and the …

Kaushal Kumar Singh HUFversusPrincipal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS),

ALLOWED

The petitioners, a group of construction firms and a HUF, filed writ petitions seeking mandamus directing the Income Tax Department to credit tax deducted at source (TDS) by Punjab National Bank for various assessment years, arguing that the bank had issued valid Form‑16A certificates and deposited …

SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITEDversusINCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 6, BANGALORE

2023 INSC 394Appeal(s) allowed

SAP Labs India Private Limited and several other assessees challenged the Income Tax Officer's assessment on transfer pricing grounds, contending that the arm's length price (ALP) determined by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was not final and could be reviewed under Section 260A of the …

STATE BANK OF INDIAversusASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

2022 INSC 1165Dismissed

The State Bank of India (SBI) paid Leave Travel Concession (LTC) to its employees for trips that included foreign legs and circuitous routes, and did not deduct tax at source (TDS). The Income Tax Department held SBI liable as an assessee in default under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act for …

MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

2018 INSC 131Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether interest expenditure incurred by Maxopp Investment Ltd. on shares held to acquire controlling interest, or held as stock‑in‑trade, could be deducted when the dividend income from those shares is exempt under Section 10. The Court held that the dominant‑purpose test …

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-I, NEW DELHIversusMIS. E-FUNDS IT SOLUTION INC.

2017 INSC 1048Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether two US‑incorporated companies, eFunds Corp. and eFunds IT Solutions Inc., had a permanent establishment (PE) in India under the India‑US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The Revenue argued that a fixed place of business, a service PE, and an agency PE …

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusM/S. TATA TEA CO. LTD. & ANR.

2017 INSC 960Disposed off

The Union of India challenged the constitutional validity of Section 115‑0 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which imposes an additional 10% tax on dividends declared by domestic companies. Tea companies argued that because up to 60% of their income is agricultural, the dividend is agricultural income …

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITEDversusEMCO LIMITED & OTHERS

2016 INSC 124Appeal(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 …

M/S. DYNAMIC ORTHOPEDICS PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN, KERALA

2010 INSC 102Matter referred to larger bench

The appeal concerned whether depreciation for computing book profit under Section 115J of the Income Tax Act should be allowed as per Rule 5 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, rather than Schedule XIV of the Companies Act, 1956. The assessee, a private limited company, had claimed depreciation under the …

COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, DIBRUGARHversusDOOM DOOMA INDIA LTD.

2009 INSC 210Dismissed

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dibrugarh appealed against judgments upholding the assessment of Doom Dooma India Ltd., a tea manufacturer, for assessment years 1988-89 to 1991-92. The core issues were the meaning of "depreciation actually allowed" under Section 43(6)(b) of the Income‑Tax Act, 1961 …

AMERICAN HOTEL & LODGING ASSN. EDU. INS.versusCENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES & ORS.

2008 INSC 623Appeal(s) allowed

The American Hotel & Lodging Association Educational Institute (AH&L) – a US non‑profit educational institution – had enjoyed exemption under Section 10(22) of the Income‑Tax Act until 31‑Mar‑1998. After the Finance Act, 1998 omitted Section 10(22), AH&L applied on 7‑Apr‑1999 for initial approval …

UNION OF INDIAversusBELGACHI TEA CO. LTD. & ORS.

2008 INSC 626Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether income from the sale of green tea leaves by Belgachi Tea Co. Ltd. should be taxed as business income under the Income Tax Act, 1961, or as agricultural income under the Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1944. The Court held that the mixed income from tea grown …

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXversusWILLAMSON FINANCIAL SERVICES AND ORS.

2007 INSC 1275Disposed off

The case concerned Williamson Financial Services, which earned composite income from growing, manufacturing and exporting tea. The assessee claimed a deduction under s.80HHC of the Income‑Tax Act on the entire tea income before applying the 60:40 apportionment mandated by Rule 8(1) of the Income‑Tax …

MADHUMILAN SYNTEX LTD. AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2007 INSC 335Dismissed

Madhumilan Syntex Ltd., a public limited company, failed to deposit Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) within the statutory period for AY 1989-90, though it later paid the amount with interest. The Income Tax Officer issued a show‑cause notice under Section 276B read with Section 278B, treating the …

MANISH MAHESHWARIversusASS TT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR.

2007 INSC 204Appeal(s) allowed

The assessee company Mis Indore Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. was subjected to a block assessment under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act after a search was conducted at the residence of its director, Rameshwar Maheshwari, under Section 132. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 15880 …

ARUN KUMAR AND ORSversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 619

The appellants, employees of Tata Iron & Steel Co., challenged the amendment to Rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 which altered the method of valuing perquisites for rent‑free accommodation. They argued that the amendment was arbitrary, violated Article 14 of the Constitution and was inconsistent …

KRISHNASWAMY S. PD. AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 97Dismissed

The appellants, who were the intended purchasers of a property, challenged an order of pre‑emptive purchase made by the Income Tax Department under Section 269UD of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the order was unreasoned and they were denied a hearing. The property owner did not …

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY-III, BOMBAYversusBRITISH BANK OF MIDDLE EAST

2001 INSC 408Appeal(s) allowed

The British Bank of Middle East, a non‑resident banking company, provided free cars to its employees for the assessment years 1975‑76 and 1976‑77. The assessing officer disallowed the perquisite value of the cars under Section 40A(5) of the Income‑Tax Act, estimating it at 50% of the actual running …

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUMversusM?S ANAND THEATRES ETC. ETC.

2000 INSC 328

The assessee, Mis Anand Theatres, claimed a 15% depreciation on its theatre building by treating it as "plant" under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer allowed only the standard 5% rate for buildings, leading to an appeal that was initially allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax …

D.L.F. UNIVERSAL LTD.versusAPPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AND ANR. ETC.

2000 INSC 286Disposed off

Two real‑estate developers (DLF Universal Ltd. and Ansal Properties) entered into agreements for the sale of flats that were still under construction and filed Form 37‑1 before the Income‑Tax Appropriate Authority seeking a no‑objection certificate for registration. The Authority issued notices …

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXversusSIRPUR PAPER MILLS ETC. ETC.

1999 INSC 116Dismissed

Sirpur Paper Mills made contributions to an approved superannuation fund amounting to Rs 2,70,911 for the current year and Rs 2,14,785 for the preceding five years. The assessing officer allowed a deduction of only 80% of the contributions and spread it over five years, relying on a Central Board of …

THIRU AROORAN SUGARS LTD., MADRASversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS

[1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 151Dismissed

Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd., a sugar manufacturer, cultivated sugarcane for its own factory and also bought large quantities of sugarcane from the market. Because part of its income was agricultural and part was business, the company sought to deduct the market value of the sugarcane it used as raw …

M/S SOUTH INDIA VISCOSE LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

1997 INSC 563Appeal(s) allowed

South India Viscose Ltd., a public limited company engaged in rayon yarn and wood pulp manufacturing, claimed extra shift depreciation allowance for AY 1971-72 on the basis of the number of days the entire concern worked double or triple shift, rather than on a per‑machinery basis. The Income Tax …

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXversusM/S. ALCOCK ASHDOWN AND CO. LTD. ETC

1997 INSC 108Disposed off

The assessee, Alcock Ashdown & Co. Ltd., started a new industrial undertaking and purchased plant and machinery, some of which remained uninstalled at the end of the accounting year. It claimed a deduction under Section 84 of the Income‑Tax Act, 1961, on the basis that the cost of these assets …

PRIMA REALTYversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 1317Appeal(s) allowed

Prima Realty, a partnership firm, entered into a compulsory purchase agreement with the Union of India for a property in Chembur. The Central Government was required to tender the consideration within one month of the purchase order, but the cheque issued to Prima Realty was incorrectly made out to …

SASADHAR CHAKRAVARTY AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 1272Dismissed

The petitioners, a retired employee of Indian Oxygen Ltd. and a pensioners’ society, challenged the scheme of the company’s non‑contributory approved superannuation fund. They argued that improvements made to the fund in 1985 should have been extended to existing pensioners and that the denial of …

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JULLUNDURversusAJANTA ELECTRICALS, PUNJAB

1995 INSC 329Dismissed

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 …

BURMAH SHELL OIL STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTING COMPANY OF INDIA LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.)versusTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), CALCUTTA

1994 INSC 143Dismissed

The appellant, Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Co. (now Bharat Petroleum), purchased iron cylinders as returnable packages for LPG distribution, costing Rs 1,09,63,754, and claimed no depreciation. In 1961 it sold the cylinders to the refinery for Rs 82,19,947, incurring a loss of Rs …

ATTAR SINGH GURMUKH SINGHversusINCOME TAX OFFICER, LUDHIANA ETC.

1991 INSC 176Dismissed

The assessees, Attar Singh and Gurmukh Singh, made cash payments exceeding Rs.10,000 for purchases of stock-in-trade, which the assessing authority disallowed as deductions under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The assessees challenged the …

SMT. KUSUM LATA SINGHALversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR AND ORS.

1990 INSC 204Dismissed

Smt. Kusum Lata Singhal, a tobacco stockist, challenged the seizure of her books and jewellery after a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act was deemed unauthorized. Her husband, R.K. Singhal, was simultaneously prosecuted under Section 132(5) and claimed the jewellery belonged to him as …

TATA TEA LTD. & ANR. ETC.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. ETC.

1988 INSC 144Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined writ petitions filed by Tata Tea Ltd. and other tea companies challenging amendments made by the West Bengal and Kerala legislatures that sought to tax the entire income from the sale of tea grown and manufactured by the assessees. The petitioners argued that only 60% of …

C.I.T. GUJARATversusELECON ENGINEERING CO. LTD.

1987 INSC 178Dismissed

Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd., a public limited company, claimed a rebate under Section 84 of the Income‑Tax Act for the assessment year 1964‑65, the second year of its new industrial project. The Assessing Officer initially allowed a rebate of Rs 2,72,372 but on reassessment reduced it to Rs …

SANT RAJ & ANR.versusO.P. SINGLA & ANR.

1985 INSC 81Case Partly allowed

Two loaders, Sant Raj and Itwari Lal Sherya, were terminated by their employer, a foreign air‑transport company. The Labour Court held the termination to be retrenchment and illegal because the employer had not complied with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and awarded them one …

M/S LOHIA MACHINES LIMITED AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1985 INSC 14Dismissed

The petitioners, industrial undertakings, challenged the validity of Rule 19A of the Income‑Tax Rules, 1962, which excluded borrowed capital and fixed the computation of "capital employed" on the first day of the previous year for the purpose of the tax exemption under Section 80J of the Income‑Tax …

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALAversusSMT. P.K. KOCHAMMU AMMA PEROKE

1980 INSC 188Dismissed

The appellant, a female partner in two firms, omitted from her 1964-65 return the shares of profit attributable to her husband and minor daughter, which under s.64(1)(i) and (iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 must be included in her total income. The Revenue assessed the omitted amount and imposed a …