Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 characters 0/2000
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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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 ?
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
Favour Of
---- 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
---- Referred In ---- ❯
  • ---- Referred In ----
  • 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 ?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date ?
Date of order
To Date

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


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

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.
Relevance Default Date
TMI Citation
    TDS classification of external development charges remains unresolved after Special Leave Petition was dismissed for uncondoned filing delay.
    Section 153D approval non-application challenge failed as interference was declined and the special leave petition dismissed.
    Statutory appellate remedy restricts writ challenges to fact-intensive assessment additions, with refusal to interfere left undisturbed
    Condonation of filing delay followed an earlier approach, resulting in dismissal of the Special Leave Petition.
    Co-operative society deduction upheld as reassessment action remained quashed despite cancellation of its licence.
    Condonation of delay in revenue proceedings remained unrelieved after no basis for intervention was found.
    Section 153C seized-document nexus remains undisturbed after the petition challenging the underlying ruling was dismissed.
    Built-up area calculation determines housing-project deduction eligibility through treatment of habitable space, common areas, projections and balconi...
    Right to a hearing requires reconsideration when an appellate-effect order is issued without the mandated opportunity.
    Reassessment notice limitation: time exclusions and deemed reply dates within the Section 148A procedural framework.
    Penalty limb specification remains undecided as delayed challenge fails without satisfactory grounds for condonation.
    Profit-element taxation for bogus purchases remained intact after special leave petitions over accommodation entries were dismissed.
    Judicial restraint in mandamus petitions limits writ intervention where alleged tax evasion rests on disputed allegations.
    Defective penalty notices based on unstruck cyclostyled particulars faced scrutiny, while discretionary intervention was declined.
    Independent satisfaction in reopening proceedings: challenge to bogus-purchase expense disallowances was dismissed at the final stage.
    Condonation of delay requires legally sufficient reasons; an untimely tax challenge did not proceed to substantive review.
    Exempt long-term capital gains raise distinct questions on inclusion in book profits under the minimum alternate tax regime.
    Alternative Statutory Remedy for Section 143(1) Intimation: ITAT Route Remains Open With Delay Condonation Request
    Conclusive settlement under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme remains unaltered after challenge to reopening of settled tax demand fails.
    Treaty-based withholding certificates must be decided on merits, not revenue targets, for domain registration charges.
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Text Quick Glance by AI Headnote
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
TDS classification of external development charges remains unresolved after Special Leave Petition was dismissed for uncondoned filing delay.
Tax deduction on external development charges was in issue: whether the payments constituted rent subject to deduction under section 194-I or contractual payments under section 194C. The Special Leave Petition was not entertained because a 328-day filing delay was not condoned; the reasons offered were found unsatisfactory and insufficient in law. The petition was consequently dismissed without resolving the TDS classification of the charges.
Quick Glance (AI)Headnote
Section 153D approval non-application challenge failed as interference was declined and the special leave petition dismissed.
Assessment proceedings under section 153A were challenged because the section 153D approval was allegedly vitiated by total non-application of mind. The Supreme Court declined to exercise its Article 136 jurisdiction to interfere with the High Court order, dismissing the special leave petition and disposing of related interlocutory applications, where applicable.
Quick Glance (AI)Headnote
Statutory appellate remedy restricts writ challenges to fact-intensive assessment additions, with refusal to interfere left undisturbed
Maintainability of a writ challenge to assessment additions requiring factual and evidentiary appraisal was addressed where a statutory appellate remedy was available. The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court's decision and dismissed the special leave petition. The legal point concerns recourse to statutory appellate mechanisms for fact-intensive assessment disputes instead of writ jurisdiction.
Quick Glance (AI)Headnote
Condonation of filing delay followed an earlier approach, resulting in dismissal of the Special Leave Petition.
Condonation of a 719-day delay in filing an appeal was considered after the petitioner referred to an earlier Supreme Court order. The Court declined to take a divergent view and dismissed the Special Leave Petition. The dismissal also resulted in disposal of any pending interlocutory applications. The stated approach followed the earlier Supreme Court order identified by the petitioner.
Quick Glance (AI)Headnote
Co-operative society deduction upheld as reassessment action remained quashed despite cancellation of its licence.
Deduction under section 80P(2)(d) was available to a co-operative society that was not a co-operative bank, despite cancellation of its licence. The High Court upheld that entitlement and quashed reassessment notices and related departmental orders. The Supreme Court found no ground to interfere, leaving the High Court's decision and the quashing of reassessment action undisturbed.
Quick Glance (AI)Headnote
Condonation of delay in revenue proceedings remained unrelieved after no basis for intervention was found.
Condonation of delay was sought by the Revenue, which attributed the delay to a peculiar procedural trajectory. The related issue concerned the legal status of a Transfer Pricing Officer report in an abated proceeding. The Supreme Court found no good ground to interfere with the High Court's order and dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
Quick Glance (AI)Headnote
Section 153C seized-document nexus remains undisturbed after the petition challenging the underlying ruling was dismissed.
Assessment under section 153C concerned whether documents seized during search proceedings related to or pertained to the petitioners' undisclosed income. The Supreme Court found no ground to interfere with the High Court judgment and dismissed the special leave petition, leaving the High Court's treatment of the seized documents undisturbed.
Quick Glance (AI)Headnote
Built-up area calculation determines housing-project deduction eligibility through treatment of habitable space, common areas, projections and balconies.
Section 80IB(10) deduction eligibility depends on calculating the prescribed 1,000 sq. ft. limit through the unit's built-up area. The relevant measurement concerns habitable area and inner measurements at floor level, while requiring consideration of whether common areas, projections and balconies are included or excluded. These components determine whether a residential unit satisfies the area condition for the housing-project deduction.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Right to a hearing requires reconsideration when an appellate-effect order is issued without the mandated opportunity.
Order giving effect to an appellate direction could not stand where the expressly contemplated reasonable opportunity of hearing was not provided to the assessee. Earlier High Court directions had also required a hearing. The Supreme Court set aside the appellate-effect order and the impugned High Court judgment, directing the Assessing Officer to reconsider the matter after hearing the assessee and keeping all contentions open.
Quick Glance (AI)Headnote
Reassessment notice limitation: time exclusions and deemed reply dates within the Section 148A procedural framework.
Limitation for issuing reassessment notices under Section 149 is considered in relation to the exclusion of time under its fifth and sixth provisos. The subject also concerns the deemed date on which a reply is treated as furnished in proceedings under Section 148A, affecting the applicable reassessment-notice limitation framework.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Penalty limb specification remains undecided as delayed challenge fails without satisfactory grounds for condonation.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) requires clarity on the applicable limb, but no substantive ruling was made on that issue. The Special Leave Petition challenging the penalty matter was dismissed because of a 201-day filing delay. The reasons offered for condonation were held insufficient in law, and the questions of law, including any issue concerning specification of the penalty limb, were left open.
Quick Glance (AI)Headnote
Profit-element taxation for bogus purchases remained intact after special leave petitions over accommodation entries were dismissed.
Bogus purchase additions involving estimation of the profit element from accommodation-entry purchases were placed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found no good ground to entertain the special leave petitions and dismissed them, leaving the High Court order confirmed. The stated subject concerns taxation of the profit component, rather than the entire value, of purchases treated as non-genuine accommodation entries.
Quick Glance (AI)Headnote
Judicial restraint in mandamus petitions limits writ intervention where alleged tax evasion rests on disputed allegations.
Writ of mandamus was invoked under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21, 261 and 265 to seek enforcement of statutory duties concerning alleged tax evasion. The allegations relied on an FIR, sworn testimony before a Family Court, affidavits concerning declared assets, and purported unaccounted cash transactions. The central legal issue concerns the scope of writ jurisdiction and judicial restraint where allegations remain disputed, alongside constitutional claims relating to equality, free expression, personal liberty, inter-State recognition, and taxation only by authority of law.
Quick Glance (AI)Headnote
Defective penalty notices based on unstruck cyclostyled particulars faced scrutiny, while discretionary intervention was declined.
Validity of a penalty notice was examined in relation to a cyclostyled show-cause notice that retained irrelevant particulars, raising vagueness concerns and questioning whether such a notice could validly found a penalty. The Supreme Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 and dismissed the special leave petition, leaving the impugned order undisturbed.
Quick Glance (AI)Headnote
Independent satisfaction in reopening proceedings: challenge to bogus-purchase expense disallowances was dismissed at the final stage.
Reopening proceedings raised the issue whether reasons to believe rested on borrowed satisfaction or the assessing authority's independent satisfaction, concerning expense disallowances for purchases treated as bogus. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP after condoning delay, finding no ground to interfere with the High Court judgment and order. The challenge to the reopening and related disallowances therefore did not proceed further before the Supreme Court.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Condonation of delay requires legally sufficient reasons; an untimely tax challenge did not proceed to substantive review.
Condonation of delay in filing a Special Leave Petition requires reasons that are satisfactory and legally sufficient. A 900-day delay relating to an income-tax dispute involving unexplained credits, a Section 153C notice, and search proceedings was not condoned because the stated reasons failed that standard. The Special Leave Petition therefore did not proceed on its substantive issues.
Quick Glance (AI)Headnote
Exempt long-term capital gains raise distinct questions on inclusion in book profits under the minimum alternate tax regime.
Section 10(38) addresses exemption of long-term capital gains, while Section 115JB governs computation of book profits for minimum alternate tax. The relevant interpretive issue concerns the proviso to Section 10(38) and whether gains excluded from total income must nevertheless be included in book profits for MAT purposes. The subject therefore distinguishes ordinary total-income computation from the statutory treatment of exempt capital gains under the MAT regime.
Quick Glance (AI)Headnote
Alternative Statutory Remedy for Section 143(1) Intimation: ITAT Route Remains Open With Delay Condonation Request
Challenge to an intimation under section 143(1) was not pursued through the writ route because an alternative statutory remedy was available. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed, while preserving liberty to approach the ITAT under that remedy and to seek condonation of delay. The matter highlights appellate recourse and delay-condonation relief where writ proceedings are affected by inordinate delay and laches.
Quick Glance (AI)Headnote
Conclusive settlement under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme remains unaltered after challenge to reopening of settled tax demand fails.
Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme settlement scope concerns the conclusiveness of settlement and the bar on reopening a settled income-tax demand. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, finding no reason to interfere with the High Court's order. The available material does not specify the High Court's reasoning or the precise legal effect of the order beyond the dismissal of the challenge.
Quick Glance (AI)Headnote
Treaty-based withholding certificates must be decided on merits, not revenue targets, for domain registration charges.
Section 197 applications seeking a nil-rate withholding certificate for domain name registration charges under the India-USA DTAA must be decided on their merits, with due regard to treaty obligations rather than revenue targets. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's ruling and dismissed the Special Leave Petition, leaving that ruling in force.

Case Laws

Back

All Case Laws

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

Case Laws

Back

All Case Laws

2026 (9) TMI 271 - SCH - Income Tax

Contents
Cases Cited
Plus +
Summary
Note

Note

-

Bookmark

Print

Print

Treaty-based withholding certificates must be decided on merits, not revenue targets, for domain registration charges.
Section 197 applications seeking a nil-rate withholding certificate for domain name registration charges under the India-USA DTAA must be decided on their ... Summary

Topics

Acts Income Tax