The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 12AA(3) r/w
The General Clauses Act
Section 21
The CIT had no jurisdiction to cancel the registration certificate once granted by him under Section 12A till–
High Courts after examining the issue, in the light of the object of Section 12A of the Act and Section 21 of the General Clauses Act held that the order of the CIT passed under Section 12A is quasi judicial in nature. Second, there was no express provision in the Act vesting the CIT with power of cancellation of registration till 01.10.2004; and lastly, Section 21of the General Clauses Act has no application to the order passed by the CIT under Section 12A because the order is quasi judicial in nature and it is for all these reasons the CIT had no jurisdiction to cancel the registration certificate once granted by him under Section 12A till the power was expressly conferred on the CIT by Section 12AA(3) of the Act w.e.f. 01.10.2004. .....Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (Gwalior) Ltd.=VS= Commi-ssioner of Income Tax, Gwalior, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (SC) 33] ....View Full Judgment

Exemption Income Tax–
Section 15C of the 1922 Act provided exemption from tax to newly established industrial undertaking if they are not ‘formed by reconstruction of business already in existence’. Thus, under the said provision, if it was found that an industrial undertaking is formed by reconstruction of business already in existence, then it was entitled to any exemption under Section 15C. It is in that context the Court was considering the meaning of reconstruction of business. On the other hand, the words under Section 80-IC are ‘substantial expansion’. Discussion contained in the said judgment would have no application to the instant case. Issue is not as to whether there is a substantial expansion or not. The issue is only as to how a period of ten years is to be calculated, namely, whether those Assessment Years in respect of which deduction under Section 80-IA and Section 80-IB was allowed are to be counted for the purpose of giving deduction under Section 80-IC. .....Mahabir Industries =VS= Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (SC) 193] ....View Full Judgment

Assessee does not fall within the four corners–
In our considered opinion, the case of the respondent (assessee) does not fall within the four corners of Section 50 (2) of the Act. Section 50(2) applies to a case where any block of assets are transferred by the assessee but where the entire running business with assets and liabilities is sold by the assessee in one go, such sale, in our view, cannot be considered as “short-term capital assets”. In other words, the provisions of Section 50 (2) of the Act would apply to a case where the assessee transfers one or more block of assets, which he was using in running of his business. Such is not the case here because in this case, the assessee sold the entire business as a running concern. We find no merit in the appeal which fails and is accordingly dismissed. .....Commissioner of Income Tax =VS= Equinox Solution Pvt. Ltd., (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (SC) 9] ....View Full Judgment

Block Assessment–
Any material or evidence found/collected in a Survey which has been simultaneously made at the premises of a connected person can be utilized while making the Block Assessment in respect of an assessee under Section 158BB read with Section 158 BH of the IT Act. The same would fall under the words “and such other materials or information as are available with the Assessing Officer and relatable to such evidence” occurring in Section158 BB of the Act. In the present case, the Assessing Officer was justified in taking the adverse material collected or found during the survey or any other method while making the Block Assessment. All the appeals succeed and are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the orders passed by the Assessing Officer making the Block Assessment are restored. However, the parties shall bear their own cost. .....Commissioner of Income Tax =VS= S. Ajit Kumar, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (SC) 126] ....View Full Judgment

The order dated 14.08.2000, passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), under Section 144A of the IT Act whereby he, inter-alia, directed the Assessing Officer to take the undisclosed income of the Appellant including from the benami business in the name of two other persons at an aggregate sum of Rs 17 lakhs as against Rs 14 lakhs declared by the Appellant in his block return was passed in contravention of law and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The High Court was right in passing the judgment and order dated 17.11.2005 and no interference is sought for by this Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. .....Tapan Kumar Dutta =VS= Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (SC) 199] ....View Full Judgment

Initiation of the re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 by issuing a notice under Section 148 merely because of the fact that now the Assessing Officer is of the view that the deduction under Section 10A was allowed in excess, was based on nothing but a change of opinion on the same facts and circumstances which were already in his knowledge even during the original assessment proceedings. .....Income Tax Officer =VS= M/s TechSpan India Private Ltd., (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (SC) 118] ....View Full Judgment

The interest accrued to such deposit of money in the bank is liable to be setoff against the public issue expenses–
The High Court was right in holding that the interest accrued to such deposit of money in the bank is liable to be setoff against the public issue expenses that the company has incurred as the interest earned was inextricably linked with requirement of the company to raise share capital and was thus adjustable towards the expenditure involved for the share issue. .....Commissioner of Income Tax =VS= Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd., (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (SC) 122] ....View Full Judgment

The High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal on the ground that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. By order dated 27.06.2002, the Tribunal concurred with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner of Appeal and accordingly dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The High Court dismissed the appeal holding that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 260-A of the Act. .....Commissioner of Income Tax =VS= Equinox Solution Pvt. Ltd., (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (SC) 9] ....View Full Judgment

No objection certificate–
There is nothing to indicate the nature of the “no objection certificate” that the vendors were required to obtain and who were the authorities from whom the “no objection certificate” was required, nor is there any indication of the purpose for which the “no objection certificate” was required. Similarly, there is no indication about the nature of the income tax clearance certificate required and for what purpose. This clause appears to have been inserted in the agreement to sell without any application of mind and it is quite possible, as alleged by the vendors that the agreement to sell was ante-dated after the introduction of Section 260-UC in the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, we need not go into this possibility in view of the vague nature of the clause. .....Kalawati =VS= Rakesh Kumar, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (SC) 44] ....View Full Judgment