Four Important Judgements Of The Supreme Court On Crucial Issues

CIT vs. Sarkar Builders (Supreme Court)

S. 80-IB(10): Restriction on extent of commercial area in “housing project” imposed w.e.f. 1.4.2005 does not apply to housing projects approved before 1.4.2005 even though completed after 1.4.2005

Can it be said that in order to avail the benefit in the assessment years after 1.4.2005, balconies should be removed though these were permitted earlier? Holding so would lead to absurd results as one cannot expect an assessee to comply with a condition that was not a part of the statute when the housing project was approved. The only way to resolve the issue would be to hold that clause (d) is to be treated as inextricably linked with the approval and construction of the housing project and an assessee cannot be called upon to comply with the said condition when it was not in contemplation either of the assessee or even the Legislature, when the housing project was accorded approval by the local authorities

 

Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

S. 32: The assessee has the right to disclaim depreciation in its entirety. However, it cannot claim depreciation for the current year and disclaim unabsorbed depreciation

Once the unabsorbed carried forward depreciation has become a part of the depreciation of the current year, it is not open to the assessee to bifurcate the two again and exercising its choice to claim the depreciation of the current year under Section 32(1) of the Act and take a position that since unabsorbed depreciation of the previous years is not claimed, it cannot be thrusted upon the assessee. The position would have been different if the assessee had not claimed any depreciation at all. However, once the depreciation is claimed and while giving deductions the depreciation is to be set off against the profits of the current year prior to the unabsorbed carried forward investment allowance, it is the entire depreciation, namely, the depreciation of the current year as well as the unabsorbed carried forward depreciation, which is to be taken into account as by virtue of the fiction created under Section 32(2) of the Act

 

DGIT vs. Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court)

S. 132: While the revenue has to record reasons to show that “satisfaction” for the search was proper and the same is justiciable, the assessee is not entitled (till the start of the assessment proceedings) to inspect the documents or the reasons as it would be counter-productive and confer an unfair advantage on the assessee

The finding of the High Court that as the satisfaction recorded is justiciable, the documents pertaining to such satisfaction can be allowed to be inspected by the assessee is plainly incorrect. The necessity of recording of reasons, despite the amendment of Rule 112 (2) with effect from 1st October, 1975, has been repeatedly stressed upon by this Court so as to ensure accountability and responsibility in the decision making process. The necessity of recording of reasons also acts as a cushion in the event of a legal challenge being made to the satisfaction reached. Reasons enable a proper judicial assessment of the decision taken by the Revenue. However, the above, by itself, would not confer in the assessee a right of inspection of the documents or to a communication of the reasons for the belief at the stage of issuing of the authorization. Any such view would be counter productive of the entire exercise contemplated by Section 132 of the Act. It is only at the stage of commencement of the assessment proceedings after completion of the search and seizure, if any, that the requisite material may have to be disclosed to the assessee

 

Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd (Supreme Court)

S. 43B: "Vend fee" paid by the assessee to the Government, even if of the nature of "privilege fee" falls within the expression "fee by whatever name called"

A reading of Section 43B after it was substituted by the Finance Act, 1988 with effect from 01.04.1989 shows that sub clause (a) in Section 43B has been considerably widened by the amendment by the addition of the words “by whatever name called”. It is clear, therefore, that to attract this section any sum that is payable whether it is called tax, duty, cess or fee or called by some other name, becomes a deduction allowable under the said Section provided that in the previous year, relevant to the assessment year, such sum should be actually paid by the assessee