Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    Search assessment additions: delayed challenge failed as binding precedent already governed the disputed unexplained-credit issue.
    Excessive delay in repeated tax litigation drew Supreme Court criticism for burdening judicial process with a frivolous petition.
    Royalty characterisation of cricket live-feed fees turns on the distinction between copyright and broadcast rights.
    Reassessment notice jurisdiction and faceless assessment requirements return to High Courts under the revised reassessment framework.
    Non-resident payment characterisation as royalty leaves Revenue review option contingent on success in related Supreme Court proceedings.
    Tax collection at source on illegal-mining compounding fees left undisturbed after related challenges were already disposed of.
    Withdrawal of show cause notice ends dispute over advance ruling proceedings and Assessing Officer jurisdiction.
    Revision jurisdiction cannot revive a tolerance-limit claim omitted from a self-assessment return after the revised-return deadline expires.
    Valuation after book rejection requires State PWD rates over CPWD rates; the High Court view remained undisturbed.
    Provision for discount deductibility remains legally open after the special leave petition was not entertained.
    Section 80P deduction for Regional Rural Banks remains governed by the High Court order, with legal questions left open.
    Cloud computing payment characterisation as royalty or technical-service fees remains governed by the undisturbed High Court ruling.
    TDS on External Development Charges follows the earlier Supreme Court approach, with the special leave petition dismissed.
    Non-adjudication of appellate grounds cannot support recall when the Tribunal had already considered and rejected them.
    Ambiguous penalty notices for concealment or inaccurate particulars remain legally unresolved as the question of law stays open.
    Passenger carriage in round-trip cruises qualifies for presumptive taxation despite onboard hospitality and return to the originating port.
    Supreme Court non-interference with High Court judgment results in dismissal of income-tax civil appeals and pending applications.
    Software licence payment royalty characterisation remains undisturbed as the Special Leave Petition was dismissed solely for filing delay.
    Electronic reassessment notices need not carry a digital signature where the governing provision does not mandate authentication.
    MPID Act overriding effect and Special Court jurisdiction over seized assets shape depositor-protection escrow and settlement issues
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Case Laws
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
    AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
    Search assessment additions: delayed challenge failed as binding precedent already governed the disputed unexplained-credit issue.
    Special leave petition challenging an assessment under search-related provisions and an addition for unexplained credits was dismissed after a 902-day filing delay. The reasons for condonation were held insufficient. The issues were also treated as governed by the Supreme Court's earlier Abhisar Buildwell principle, leading to dismissal on merits. The filing was criticised as unnecessary because the Department itself accepted that the dispute was already covered by binding precedent, thereby adding to judicial pendency.
    AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
    Excessive delay in repeated tax litigation drew Supreme Court criticism for burdening judicial process with a frivolous petition.
    The Supreme Court criticised the Department for filing a special leave petition with an excessive delay after an earlier SLP challenging the same impugned order had already been dismissed for delay. The petition was characterised as frivolous and as unnecessarily burdening the Court. The Court urged the Department to exercise greater vigilance and avoid repeatedly filing matters with exorbitant delay. Although the material lists substantive tax issues concerning goodwill depreciation, CSR expenditure, related-unit valuation, captive power, steam transfers, additional claims and consistency, no determination of those issues is set out.
    Quick Glance (AI)Headnote
    Royalty characterisation of cricket live-feed fees turns on the distinction between copyright and broadcast rights.
    Fees received for live transmission or live feeds of cricket matches are characterised as royalty receipts where the service generating the income falls within Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi). The central legal distinction concerns copyright and broadcast rights. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition in light of the order in Deputy Director of Income Tax International Taxation v. Shine Satellite Public Company Ltd.
    AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
    Reassessment notice jurisdiction and faceless assessment requirements return to High Courts under the revised reassessment framework.
    Reassessment disputes concern the validity of notices, sanction by the specified authority, and whether jurisdictional Assessing Officers may issue notices instead of the prescribed faceless mechanism or competent Faceless Assessment Officers. The issues also cover the effect of subsequent amending legislation on pending reassessment litigation, including the Finance Act 2021 changes to the reassessment framework and insertion of section 147A. The appeals were disposed of under an earlier Supreme Court order and remitted to the respective High Courts for decision in accordance with that order.
    Quick Glance (AI)Headnote
    Non-resident payment characterisation as royalty leaves Revenue review option contingent on success in related Supreme Court proceedings.
    TDS on payments to non-residents was considered where the ITAT found that payments to three non-resident companies were not royalty under the applicable DTAA. The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal but allowed the Revenue to seek review or restoration if its review petition concerning Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence succeeds before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court disposed of the petition and related pending applications.
    Quick Glance (AI)Headnote
    Tax collection at source on illegal-mining compounding fees left undisturbed after related challenges were already disposed of.
    Collection of tax at source under section 206C was considered in relation to compounding fees recovered from persons engaged in illegal mining, transportation or storage of minerals without a lease, licence, or contractual transfer of mining or quarry rights. The issue concerned the scope of the MMDR Act and Rule 71(5) of the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Rules, 2015. The Special Leave Petitions were dismissed because the Special Leave Petitions challenging the common judgment had already been disposed of.
    AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
    Withdrawal of show cause notice ends dispute over advance ruling proceedings and Assessing Officer jurisdiction.
    Withdrawal of the show cause notice rendered the dispute over withdrawal of the advance ruling application, abeyance of departmental proceedings, CBDT Circular compliance, Assessing Officer jurisdiction and Article 226 writ relief academic. The special leave petitions were dismissed because no issue remained for consideration after the notice was withdrawn.
    AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
    Revision jurisdiction cannot revive a tolerance-limit claim omitted from a self-assessment return after the revised-return deadline expires.
    Revision under Section 264 cannot serve as a substitute for revising a self-assessment return after the statutory period for filing a revised return has expired. Where a tolerance-limit claim was omitted from the original return and not raised through a timely revised return, it cannot be introduced indirectly in revision against processing under Section 143(1) and the consequential demand notice under Section 156. Fresh consideration of that omitted claim is impermissible, and tax liability remains based on the self-assessment return and consequential demand.
    Quick Glance (AI)Headnote
    Valuation after book rejection requires State PWD rates over CPWD rates; the High Court view remained undisturbed.
    Reliance on a District Valuation Officer's report following rejection of books of account is discussed in relation to the appropriate valuation benchmark. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) faulted the valuation method used by the District Valuation Officer, while not questioning the procedure of obtaining the valuation report. The text states that valuation should be based on State PWD rates rather than CPWD rates and records dismissal of the Special Leave Petition without interference with the High Court judgment.
    Quick Glance (AI)Headnote
    Provision for discount deductibility remains legally open after the special leave petition was not entertained.
    A special leave petition concerning the allowability of a provision for discount as an expense was not entertained by the SC in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances. The petition was dismissed, while any question of law was expressly kept open. The text does not state a binding determination on whether such discount provisions are allowable deductions.
    AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
    Section 80P deduction for Regional Rural Banks remains governed by the High Court order, with legal questions left open.
    The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court order concerning the availability of deduction under section 80P to Regional Rural Banks as co-operative societies, including the statutory deeming fiction under the Regional Rural Banks Act. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed, while any questions of law were expressly kept open.
    Quick Glance (AI)Headnote
    Cloud computing payment characterisation as royalty or technical-service fees remains governed by the undisturbed High Court ruling.
    The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's judgment concerning tax treatment of payments received by a US tax resident for cloud computing services from Indian entities. The dispute concerned whether the payments constituted royalty or fees for technical services under domestic tax law and the India-US DTAA, including issues relating to equipment use, non-exclusive licences, the "make available" condition and withholding tax. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, leaving the High Court's judgment undisturbed.
    Quick Glance (AI)Headnote
    TDS on External Development Charges follows the earlier Supreme Court approach, with the special leave petition dismissed.
    TDS on External Development Charges received by HUDA from private persons or builders was addressed under sections 194C and 194I. Where tax had not been deducted on those charges, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition by following its earlier order in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. The dismissal leaves the earlier approach governing TDS treatment of such External Development Charges applicable to the parties.
    Quick Glance (AI)Headnote
    Non-adjudication of appellate grounds cannot support recall when the Tribunal had already considered and rejected them.
    Non-adjudication of appellate grounds does not justify recall where the Tribunal has already considered and rejected those grounds. The High Court found that the allegedly undecided grounds had been addressed, leaving no basis to interfere with the appellate order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on that basis.
    Quick Glance (AI)Headnote
    Ambiguous penalty notices for concealment or inaccurate particulars remain legally unresolved as the question of law stays open.
    An ambiguous show-cause notice issued for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars is identified as the subject of the penalty dispute under section 271(1)(c). The text records that the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's judgment and dismissed the Special Leave Petition, while keeping any question of law open. No broader legal principle or adjudicatory holding on the validity of a defective penalty notice is stated in the supplied text.
    AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
    Passenger carriage in round-trip cruises qualifies for presumptive taxation despite onboard hospitality and return to the originating port.
    Section 44B applies to a non-resident operating ships for carriage of passengers and permits presumptive income computation from amounts paid or payable for that carriage. Passenger carriage need not involve travel between two distinct ports: a round-trip voyage returning to its origin remains carriage, particularly where passengers may disembark at intermediate ports. Hospitality and entertainment provided on board are ancillary to cruise operations and do not alter the activity's essential character. A non-resident cruise operator conducting such voyages falls within the presumptive-income regime under Section 44B.
    Quick Glance (AI)Headnote
    Supreme Court non-interference with High Court judgment results in dismissal of income-tax civil appeals and pending applications.
    The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's common judgment and order after considering the parties' submissions and the record. The civil appeals were dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of. The text provides no substantive income-tax issue, reasoning, or legal principle underlying the High Court judgment; accordingly, no further legal proposition can be stated.
    AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
    Software licence payment royalty characterisation remains undisturbed as the Special Leave Petition was dismissed solely for filing delay.
    Software purchase payments to non-residents were described as not constituting royalty and therefore not requiring withholding under section 195, consistent with the Karnataka High Court decision referred to in the text. The Supreme Court did not examine that substantive characterisation: it found the reasons for a 307-day delay in filing the Special Leave Petition unsatisfactory and legally insufficient, dismissed the condonation application, and consequently dismissed the Special Leave Petition solely on delay.
    Quick Glance (AI)Headnote
    Electronic reassessment notices need not carry a digital signature where the governing provision does not mandate authentication.
    Authentication of electronically generated reassessment notices is addressed through the High Court view that, although a digital signature may be appropriate, the applicable provision does not mandate one. Absence of a digital signature therefore does not make the notice irregular or invalidate reassessment proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition without interfering with that view.
    AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
    MPID Act overriding effect and Special Court jurisdiction over seized assets shape depositor-protection escrow and settlement issues
    Overriding effect of the MPID Act, the Special Court's jurisdiction over seized assets, and the release of funds to escrow for depositor protection are identified as the central legal subjects. The text also concerns conflicts between special statutes and the legal validity of settlement arrangements. It indicates that these issues arose in connection with an order of the Bombay High Court, without providing the underlying legal reasoning or factual basis.

    Case Laws

    Back

    All Case Laws

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      2026 (8) TMI 399 - SCH - Income Tax

      Contents
      Cases Cited
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 80P deduction for Regional Rural Banks remains governed by the High Court order, with legal questions left open.
      The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court order concerning the availability of deduction under section 80P to Regional Rural Banks as ... Summary

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax