Legal News & Views

Cause Title :  M/s New Noble Educational Society Vs The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 And Anr., Supreme Court Of India, Civil Appeal No. 3795 Of 2014 Date of Judgment/Order : 19/10/2022 Corum : Uday Umesh Lalit; Cji., S. Ravindra Bhat; J., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha; J. Citied:  T.M.A Pai Foundation v State of Karnataka, 2002 (8) SCC 481 Aditanar Educational Institution v. Addl. CIT, [1997] 224 ITR 310 Oxford University Press v. CIT, [2001] 247 ITR 658 Background The subject matter of the appeals was the rejection of the appellants’ claim for registration as a fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational institution set up for the charitable purpose of education, under the Income Tax Act, 1961 . The Andhra Pradesh High Court, by its detailed impugned judgment, held that the appellant trusts which claimed benefit of exemption under Section 10 (23C) of the IT Act were not created ‘solely’ for the purpose of education, and that to determine that issue, the cou

Cause Title :  Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, Civil Appeal No. 21762 Of 2017, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 19/10/2022 Corum : Uday Umesh Lalit; Cji., S. Ravindra Bhat; J., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha; J. Citied:  Commissioner of Income Tax vs P. Krishna Warriar, (1964) 8 SCR 36 Assistant Commissioner vs Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers’ Association, (1980) 2 SCC 31 Bhuwalka Steel Indus. Ltd. & Ors. vs Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Bd. & Ors., 2009 (16) SCR 618 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs Thanthi Trust, (2001) 2 SCC 707, (1980) 2 SCC 31 Indian Chamber of Commerce vs CIT, (1976) 1 SCC 324 Background The primary question before the Supreme Court was the correct interpretation of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the IT Act introduced by amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2009 which defines “charitable purpose”. The IT Act visualized three kinds of charitable purposes: medical relief, education, and reli

Cause Title :  Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, Civil Appeal No. 21762 Of 2017, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 19/10/2022 Corum : Uday Umesh Lalit; Cji., S. Ravindra Bhat; J., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha; J. Citied:  Commissioner of Income Tax vs P. Krishna Warriar, (1964) 8 SCR 36 Assistant Commissioner vs Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers’ Association, (1980) 2 SCC 31 Bhuwalka Steel Indus. Ltd. & Ors. vs Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Bd. & Ors., 2009 (16) SCR 618 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs Thanthi Trust, (2001) 2 SCC 707, (1980) 2 SCC 31 Indian Chamber of Commerce vs CIT, (1976) 1 SCC 324 J.K. Trust, Bombay v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Excess Profits Tax, Bombay [(1957) 32 ITR Background The primary question before the Supreme Court was the correct interpretation of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the IT Act introduced by amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2009 which defines “charitable purpose”. T

Cause Title :  M/s. N. N. Global Mercantile Private Limited vs M/s. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No(S). 3802-3803 Of 2020, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 25/4/2023 Corum : K. M. Joseph,J.,  C.T. Ravikumar, J., Aniruddha Bose, J., Ajay Rastogi, J, Hrishikesh Roy, J. Citied:  N.N. Global Mercantile Private Limited vs Indo Unique Flame Limited and others, (2021) 4 SCC 379 SMS Tea Estates Private Limited vs Chandmari Tea Company Private Limited, (2011) 14 SCC 66 SBP & Co. vs Patel Engineering Ltd. and another, (2005) 8 SCC 618 Duro Felguera, S.A. vs Gangavaram Port Limited, (2017) 9 SCC 729 Mayavati Trading Private Limited vs Pradyuat Deb Burman, (2019) 8 SCC 714 Garware Wall Ropes Limited vs Coastal Marine Constructions & Engineering Limited, (2019) 9 SCC 209 Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs Dilip Construction Company, (1969) 1 SCC 597 Hariom Agrawal vs Prakash Chand Malviya, (2007) 8 SCC 514 Lachmi Narayan Agarwalla and Others vs Braja Mohan Singh (SINC

Cause Title : Shanti Bhushan vs State of U.P., Civil Appeal No. 8388 Of 2017, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 25/4/2023 Corum : Abhay S. Oka., J & Rajesh Bindal, J. Citied:  Special Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation Officer, Sagar vs M.S. Seshagiri Rao, (1968) 2 SCR 892 Mangat Ram and Others vs State of Haryana and others, (1996) 8 SCC 664 O.N. Talwar vs The Collector of Stamps, (1971) 7 DLT 319 The Commissioner of Wealth Tax Mysore, Bangalore v. V.C. Ramachandran, (1966) 60 ITR 103 State of Rajasthan vs Khandaka Jain Jewellers, (2007) 14 SCC 339 Background The issue is the stamp duty to be paid by the Appellants for registration of sale deed on purchasing a property  measuring 7818.00 sq.mts. land along with construction and super structure standing thereon where  they are the permanent tenants.  By using the rent capitalisation method, the appellants calculated Rs. 6,67,200/­ as the market value of the sale deed property and paid the stamp duty on the said mar