|
1. Block Assessment –
Computation of Undisclosed Income vis-a-vis set off of brought forward losses –
S.158BB(4)
In view of expl. (a) to sec.
158 BB (4), it is mandatory that only brought forward losses of past year
under chapter VI and unabsorbed depreciation u/s 32 (2) are to be excluded
while aggregating total income or loss for the block period and set off of
inter se losses and losses accruing in any previous year in the block period
against the income assessed in other previous year in the block period is not
prohibited E.K. Lingamurthy and Anr vs. Settl. Commissioner (2009) 222 CTR 1
(SC) (2009) 19 DTR 99 (2009) 178 Taxman 116 (SC)
2. Deduction – Hotel
Business – S.80HH
The Supreme Court held that
for the purpose of claiming deduction under section 80HH, the assessee has to
demonstrate that it was a processer which has outsourced some of the
activities to its sister concern. In the present facts where there are no
details of the process undertaken by the assessee and the sister concern, the
deduction under section 80HH would not be available.
CIT vs. R. Pratap (2009) 310
ITR 405 (SC)
3. Deduction of Tax at source
– Jurisdiction – Assessee in default – Constitution of India – Article –
S.2(47), 9(1)(1), 195, 201
The Supreme Court held that the question of jurisdictional issue may be
determined by the authorities concerned as a preliminary issue. The supreme
Court further held that the Petitioner would be entitled to question the
decision of the authority on the preliminary issue before the High Court.
Vodafone International
Holdings B.V. vs. Union of India (2009) 221 CTR 617 (SC)
4. Deduction of tax at
source salary – S.192
The Supreme Court held that
an employer is under no obligation to collect and examine the supporting
evidence to a declaration submitted by an employee to the effect that he has
actually utilised the amounts for the specified purposes in deciding the
liability to TDS under section 192.
CIT vs. ITI Ltd. (2009) 221 CTR
619 (SC)
5. Depreciation when rule 8D
applies – S.32
The Supreme Court held that
in case of manufacturer of tea, by virtue of rule 8D, only 40% of the income
is taxed and consequently in deciding liability only proportionate
depreciation is required to be taken in to account as that is the depreciation
actually allowed.
CIT vs. Doom Dooma India Ltd.
(2009) 310 ITR 392 (SC)
6. Export – S.80HHC
The Supreme Court dismissed
the appeal by the assessee from the decision of the High Court where it was
held that where the reserve created for the purpose of special deduction under
section 80HHC is of a lesser amount then deduction would be allowed only of
the lesser amount supported by the creation of the reserve.
Prakash Brothers vs. CIT
(2009) 309 ITR 446 (SC)
7. Interest – S.234A
The Supreme Court held even
though the return of income is filed late, if the assessee has paid the taxes
before the due date of the filing of the return which is not less then the tax
payable on the returned income which has been accepted, no interest can be
levied under section 234A.
CIT vs. Pranoy Roy (2009) 222
CTR 6 (SC)
8. Search & Seizure
Surcharge – S.113
The Supreme Court held when
the search was conducted on April 6, 2000, i.e. prior to June 1, 2002, the
provisions of the Finance Act, 2001 would be applicable and surcharge would be
leviable, on tax payable u/s. 113.
CIT vs. Rajiv Bhatara (2009)
310 ITR 105 (SC)
9. Tribunal-Enhancement –
S.254(1)
The Supreme Court held that
under section 254(1), the Tribunal has no power to take back the benefit
conferred by assessing officer or enhance the assessment. In the present case
since the assessing officer has granted depreciation the benefit could not be
withdrawn by the Tribunal.
Mcorp Global P Ltd. vs. CIT
(2009) 309 ITR
434 (SC)
|