Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Taxation

M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI – II, NEW DELHI

Where shares of an amalgamating company held as stock-in-trade are substituted by shares of the amalgamated company pursuant to a court-sanctioned scheme, Section 28 may apply and tax arise if, upon allotment, the substituted shares are presently realisable and possess a definite ascertainable market value; the charge under Section 28 is attracted on allotment of new shares and not merely on the appointed date or sanction, and factual determination of realisability and nature of holding is required by the Tribunal.

Source excerpt

  • Section 28, income tax act, 1961
  • Amalgamation
  • Stock-in-trade
  • Capital gains
  • Section 47(vii)
  • Timing of taxability
Read case analysis
Income tax

HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD versus ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

The SOSA conferred continuing, enforceable rights and pervasive operational, managerial and financial control (including appointment/supervision of key personnel, policy implementation, assignment of staff, control over bank accounts and a profit‑linked remuneration) so that the appellant carried on its business through the hotel premises; the premises were 'at the disposal' of the appellant and the aggregate, continuous presence and activities of its personnel satisfied Article 5(1) and 5(2)(i) of the Indo‑UAE DTAA, therefore profits attributable to that fixed place PE are taxable in India u…

Source excerpt

  • Permanent establishment
  • Double taxation avoidance agreement (indo-uae dtaa)
  • Strategic oversight services agreement (sosa)
  • Fixed place of business
  • Fees for technical services
  • Attribution of profits
Read case analysis
Income tax

SHITAL FIBERS LIMITED versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

On a plain reading of Section 80-IA(9), where an amount of profits and gains of an undertaking or enterprise is claimed and allowed under Section 80-IA, that amount to the extent allowed cannot be allowed as a deduction under any other provision under Heading 'C' of Chapter VI-A; Section 80-IA(9) restricts allowability (post-computation) rather than the method of computation, so aggregate deductions under Heading 'C' cannot exceed the profits and gains of the eligible business.

Source excerpt

  • Section 80-ia(9)
  • Section 80-hhc
  • Section 80-ib
  • Chapter vi-a heading c
  • Deductions under chapter vi-a
  • Allowability versus computation of deductions
Read case analysis
Income tax

K. KRISHNAMURTHY versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The Court held that by virtue of Explanation (b)(ii) AY 2011-12 (the year in which the search was conducted) was the 'specified previous year'; the Appellant had admitted Rs.2,27,65,580 during the search, substantiated how it was derived and paid tax with interest (albeit belatedly), so the conditions of Section 271AAA(2) were satisfied and no penalty was attracted on that amount; however Rs.2,49,90,000 disclosed only during assessment proceedings based on sale deeds collected as a result of the search constituted undisclosed income 'found in the course of search' and was not admitted during…

Source excerpt

  • Section 271aaa
  • Undisclosed income
  • Specified previous year
  • Interpretation of penalty provisions
Read case analysis
Income tax

VINUBHAI MOHANLAL DOBARIA versus CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR

An offence under Section 276CC is committed on the day immediately following the due date fixed by Section 139(1); 'first offence' in the 2014 Guidelines means an offence committed prior to issuance of any show-cause notice/intimation/launch of prosecution (or voluntarily disclosed before detection), and because both of the appellant's s.276CC offences were committed before any show-cause notice was issued, the AY 2013-14 offence qualified as a 'first offence' and the compounding application could not have been rejected solely on that ground.

Source excerpt

  • Compounding of offence
  • Section 276cc
  • Guidelines for compounding of offences under direct tax laws, 2014
  • First offence
  • Voluntary disclosure
  • Due date for filing returns
Read case analysis
Income tax

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus RAJEEV BANSAL

The Income Tax Act must be read with the substituted provisions of the Finance Act 2021 from 1 April 2021; TOLA continues to apply after 1 April 2021 to extend time-limits only where the action or proceeding under the (substituted) Income Tax Act fell for completion between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021 (and as extended by notification to 30 June 2021); s.3(1) of TOLA overrides s.149 only insofar as it relaxes the time for issuance of reassessment notices under s.148 and extends, where applicable, the time for sanction under s.151; the Ashish Agarwal legal fiction deeming s.148 notices issu…

Source excerpt

  • Reassessment (sections 147-151, income tax act)
  • Limitation and time bar
  • Taxation and other laws (relaxation and amendment of certain provisions) act 2020 (tola)
  • Finance act 2021
  • Article 142
  • Legal fiction
Read case analysis
Income tax

RAVI AGRAWAL versus UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER

The amendment to Section 80DD inserted by the Finance Act, 2022 (effective 01.04.2023) cannot be given retrospective effect to policies taken prior to the amendment because the object of the Jeevan Adhar policy is to secure provision for a dependent disabled person on the death of the subscriber; allowing discontinuation on attainment of age 60 would defeat that object and unlawfully alter the terms of existing insurance contracts, therefore the plea for retrospective operation is rejected and the petition disposed of.

Source excerpt

  • Section 80dd
  • Retrospective effect of amendment
  • Jeevan adhar policy
  • Finance act, 2022 amendment
Read case analysis
Income tax

ALL INDIA BANK OFFICERS’ CONFEDERATION versus THE REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Section 17(2)(viii) is a valid residuary enabling provision that sufficiently delineates legislative policy and standards to permit subordinate rule-making; Rule 3(7)(i), enacted thereunder, legitimately treats interest-free or concessional loans to bank employees as perquisites and prescribes SBI's PLR as a reasonable uniform benchmark for valuation; the provisions do not constitute excessive delegation nor violate Article 14, and therefore the appeals are dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Perquisites
  • Fringe benefits
  • Delegation of legislative power
  • Article 14
  • Rule-making power
  • Valuation of benefits
Read case analysis
Criminal law

PUNEET SABHARWAL versus CBI

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and assessment orders are not conclusive proof to discharge accused in a prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act; their probative value must be examined in a full trial. Given the material before the trial court and the principles governing framing of charges (requiring only prima facie/sufficient material and not a mini trial), the High Court correctly refused to quash the order on charge and the framing of charges. The minority of appellant Puneet for part of the check period was not a bar because he was an adult for seven years of the check peri…

Source excerpt

  • Disproportionate assets
  • Quashing of criminal proceedings
  • Framing of charge
  • Discharge
  • Evidentiary value of income tax/assessment orders
  • Minority as a defence
Read case analysis
Income tax

M/S MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM

Reopenings of the three concluded assessments were unjustified because the sole fresh material relied on was a balance sheet prepared for bank credit (previously held unreliable in earlier proceedings) and comparison with the later audited 1993-94 balance sheet produced only a change of opinion by the assessing officer; the original assessments under Section 143(3) had been based on enquiries and the returns were accepted without the assessing officer treating them as defective under Section 139(9); therefore there was no lawful 'reason to believe' grounded on fresh, reliable material to reop…

Source excerpt

  • Concluded assessment
  • Reassessment
  • Search and seizure operations
  • Disclosed income
  • Limitation period
  • Reopening the assessment
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.