Supreme Court: How to appreciate evidence of income tax or sales tax return while assessing compensation in motor accident claim petition?

 As far as the income is concerned, we agree with the High Court that the Tribunal had entered into mere surmises and conjectures to decline adoption of the income as per the income tax returns. In this context, we have to notice that the registration of the firm of the claimant took place on 06.03.2006 and the income tax returns produced are also for the assessment years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 relatable to the financial years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 which are prior to the accident which occurred on 09.04.2007. It cannot be said that the claimant apprehended an accident and got registration of a firm and filed his income tax returns two years prior to the accident. Further, the claimant had also produced sales tax returns which was also rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that there was no taxable profits in the said year. Insofar as the levy of sales tax is concerned, the levy is on the sales and not on the profits. The finding of the Tribunal also is that in the first year, there was no tax payable and hence there was no profits or income. The exemption from tax is only because the purchase and sales did not exceed the taxable value. The sale proceeds being not within the taxable limit is not an indication of the profit accrued, or the income received from the business which is reflected in the income tax returns. On the above reasoning, we have to accept the income tax returns for the financial year 2007-2008 in which the total gross income is seen as Rs. 1,96,000/- out of which the tax of Rs. 4,641/- has to be deducted. The income, hence, has to be assessed at Rs. 1,91,000/-.  {Para 8

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 12098-12099 of 2024

Anoop Maheshwari Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.

Author: K. Vinod Chandran, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1076, MANU/SC/1233/2025

Decided On: 04.09.2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Medical board's certificate can be accepted in motor accident claim petition even without a witness being examined

 Insofar as the disability is concerned, we have no doubt that the medical board's certificate can be accepted, even without a witness being examined. {Para 7}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 12098-12099 of 2024

Anoop Maheshwari Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.

Author: K. Vinod Chandran, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1076, MANU/SC/1233/2025

Decided On: 04.09.2025.

Print Page

Whether landlord is bound to deduct TDS on rental income of Rs 40,000/ per month given for household use in india?

 No, the landlord is not bound to deduct TDS (Tax Deducted at Source) on rental income of ₹40,000 per month given for household (residential) use in India.

According to Section 194IB of the Income Tax Act, TDS is only required to be deducted by the tenant if the monthly rent paid exceeds ₹50,000. The obligation for TDS deduction does not apply for rent payments below this threshold, whether the use is residential or commercial.

So, for a monthly rent of ₹40,000, there is no requirement for the landlord or the tenant to deduct TDS under current Indian tax laws.

Print Page

Bombay HC: How to ascertain which perks given to employee is for his benefit and which perks are for benefit of his family for computation of compensation in motor accident?

 In the present case, the deceased was in service. As far as determination of income by way of salary is concerned, the law has been laid down by the Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava and others (MANU/SC/8201/2007 : AIR 2008 SC 845) (supra). In paragraph 10 (Para 9 of AIR) of its decision, the Apex Court held thus:-

10...If some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, in our opinion, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicant is required to be determined.... {Para 16}

The ultimate conclusion is in paragraph 19 (Para 17 of AIR) of its judgment which reads thus:-

19 The amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contra distinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. We may, however, hasten to add that from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted.

17. Thus, the well settled position of law is that the amounts which were paid to the deceased by way of perks should be taken into consideration for computation of monthly income provided the perks were for the benefit of the family of the deceased. However, the allowances which were meant only for his personal benefit cannot be taken into consideration. The income-tax will have to be deducted from the income while arriving at the income for determining multiplicand. 

Due to absence of any evidence adduced by the first respondent to show that the Uniform Making Allowance, Uniform Washing Allowance, Transport Allowance, Conveyance, Medical Expenses were for the benefit of the family, the same cannot be taken into consideration for computing the loss of dependency. As far as the Academic Research Allowance is concerned, the same is payable as a perk apart from the basic salary. As suggested by the very name, it was not payable to the deceased by way of reimbursement of expenditure incurred by him. Hence, the benefit thereof was available not only to the deceased but also to his family members. Therefore, the said amount will have to be taken into consideration and will have to be added to the basic salary of Rs. 31,950/-. Thus, the gross salary comes to Rs. 34,950/- which can be rounded off to Rs. 35,000/-.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

First Appeal No. 1068 of 2012

Decided On: 31.08.2012

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vaishali Harish Devare and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Sadhana S. Jadhav, JJ.

Citation: 2014 ACJ 415 Bom, MANU/MH/2291/2012.

Print Page

Supreme court: Courts Must Notify Income Tax Dept. Of Rs. 2 Lakh And Above Cash Transaction Claims In Suits

However, when the Bill was passed, the permissible limit was capped under Rupees Two Lakhs, instead of the proposed Rupees Three Lakhs. When a suit is filed claiming Rs. 75,00,000/- paid by cash, not only does is create a suspicion on the transaction, but also displays, a violation of law. Though the amendment has come into effect from 01.04.2017, we find from the present litigation that the same has not brought the desired change. When there is a law in place, the same has to be enforced. Most times, such transactions go unnoticed or not brought to the knowledge of the income tax authorities. It is settled position that ignorance in fact is excusable but not the ignorance in law. Therefore, we deem it necessary to issue the following directions:

(A) Whenever, a suit is filed with a claim that Rs. 2,00,000/- and above is paid by cash towards any transaction, the courts must intimate the same to the jurisdictional Income Tax Department to verify the transaction and the violation of Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act, if any,

(B) Whenever, any such information is received either from the court or otherwise, the Jurisdictional Income Tax authority shall take appropriate steps by following the due process in law,

(C) Whenever, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and above is claimed to be paid by cash towards consideration for conveyance of any immovable property in a document presented for registration, the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar shall intimate the same to the jurisdictional Income Tax Authority who shall follow the due process in law before taking any action,

(D) Whenever, it comes to the knowledge of any Income Tax Authority that a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- or above has been paid by way of consideration in any transaction relating to any immovable property from any other source or during the course of search or assessment proceedings, the failure of the registering authority shall be brought to the knowledge of the Chief Secretary of the State/UT for initiating appropriate disciplinary action against such officer who failed to intimate the transactions.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5200 of 2025 

Decided On: 16.04.2025

The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution Vs. B. Gunashekar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Author: R. Mahadevan, J.

 Citation: 2025 INSC 490, MANU/SC/0492/2025

Print Page

Supreme Court Reinforces Property Law Principles: Agreement to Sell Cannot Create Rights Against Third Parties

 The Supreme Court of India's recent judgment in The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 5200 of 2025) has significantly strengthened property law jurisprudence while providing crucial protection to charitable institutions from frivolous litigation. The two-judge bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan delivered this important ruling on April 16, 2025, addressing fundamental questions about the enforceability of agreements to sell against third parties.

Background: A 148-Year-Old Institution Under Siege

The case involved R.B.A.N.M.S. Educational Institution, a charitable trust established in 1873 to serve marginalized communities in Bangalore. The institution has been in continuous possession of the disputed property since 1905, when it was initially leased the "Sappers Practice Ground," which was formally conveyed to them by the Municipal Commissioner in 1929.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Motor accident claim tribunal can not reduce Compensation Merely Because Dependents Took Over Business Of Deceased

ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION:

11. Having examined the matter, the Court finds that the Award rendered by the Tribunal is well-considered. Though the claimed compensation was Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore) each with regard to the father and the mother, the Tribunal granted Rs.58,24,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Eight Lakhs Twenty-Four Thousand) re the father and Rs.93,61,000/-(Rupees Ninety-Three Lakhs Sixty-One Thousand) re the mother. The documents produced by the Appellants and the reasoning given by the Tribunal as well as the Karnataka High Court's Division Bench judgment in B. Parimala (supra) indicate, and in our opinion, rightly so, that merely because the Appellants stepped into the shoes of the deceased, by such factum itself, the Appellants would not be capable of running the Mill. It would be of relevance as to whether due to their lack of experience and maturity, real/expected downfall in the profitability of the firm or the business would ensue. Such factor, while considering a claim pertaining to loss of future income/earnings, would have to be dealt with. In the present cases, even the monthly incomes of the parents as claimed by the Appellants i.e.. income of the father being Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs) per year and the mother's being Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) per year, the notional income fixed by the Tribunal of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand) each per month, is much more reasonable. It is no longer res integra that Income Tax Returns are reliable evidence to assess the income of a deceased, reference whereof can be made to Amrit Bhanu Shali v National Insurance Co. Ltd.,   MANU/SC/0537/2012 : (2012) 11 SCC 7388; Kalpanaraj v Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,   MANU/SC/0345/2014 : (2015) 2 SCC 7649, and K. Ramya (supra)10.

12. The observations, as under, in Sushma (supra) fortify our view:

'7. Therefore in the matter of determining the compensation certain larger aspects have to be kept in perspective and even if it is expected that the Bakery business is continued, the loss due to the death of the husband and his expertise in such business certainly would be at least to the extent of 50% of the normal way in which the business was conducted...'

17. The mere fact that the Deceased's share of ownership in these businesses ventures was transferred to the Deceased's minor children just before his death or to the dependents after his death is not a sufficient justification to conclude that the benefits of these businesses continue to accrue to his dependents. On the contrary, it has come on record that the Deceased was actively involved in the day- to-day administration of these businesses from their stage of infancy, had undergone specialized training to administer his business and that the audit reports neatly delineate Deceased's share of income from the businesses. These facts necessitate that the entire amount from the business ventures is treated as income. Similarly, the amount earned from the bank interests and remaining investments must also be included as income.' (sic)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 1162-1163 of 2025.

Decided On: 29.01.2025

S. Vishnu Ganga and Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited Rep. by its Divisional Manager and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.

Author: Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 123,MANU/SC/0119/2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: In Disproportionate Assets Cases, Income Tax Returns are Presumed To Be Accurate; The court Must Consider Inflation & Dynamic Factors

 We are of the view that the Appellant’s wife’s income

must be considered as well while calculating the total

income and assets. Both the Appellant and his wife

have filed the relevant income tax returns in order to

show their respective incomes and assets. The

Respondents in their Counter-Affidavit have not

denied these income tax returns or alleged them to be

forged or fabricated. Therefore, when a public servant

is submitting his income tax returns, they should be

presumed to be true and correct. If you duly consider

the income tax returns of the Appellant and his wife

for the check period of the year 1996-2020, the total

income is coming up to be Rs.1,21,06,268/-(Rupees

One Crore Twenty One Lakh Six Thousand Two

Hundred Sixty Eight only) which is in fact more than

the assets amounting to Rs.1,16,02,669/- (Rupees

One Crore Sixteen Lakh Two Thousand Six Hundred

Sixty Nine only) which is said to be the

disproportionate assets in question under the present

FIR. {Para 9}

10. Further, we have considered that the check period is

from the year 1996 to 2020, which is almost twenty

five years. It must be taken into account that over

such a long period of time, there is inflation and a

natural progression in the changing economy that

affects the value of assets such as property. This can

understandably lead to discrepancies in declaring the

value of assets over the years. Therefore, there should

be a more dynamic approach while considering an

individual’s income and assets over the span of two

decades, such as in the present case. The notion that

the declared value of an asset such as property or gold

will remain static is flawed. This has to be considered

while examining an individual’s assets and income

while making a determination regarding

disproportionate assets. Such an examination needs

to reflect such adjustments and changes as is natural

with the progression of time.

11. We find it pertinent to note that in cases such as these

where disproportionate assets are being dealt with,

the amounts under scrutiny cannot be looked at in

the same manner as one would do a Bank statement

or daily ledger of income and expenditure. The

scrutiny process cannot be as mechanical as that

when you are examining declared assets and the

income of an individual over such a long period of

time. There has to be a certain margin that is given

while making such an assessment as there are

invariably economical fluctuations that would have

taken place, especially over the course of nearly

twenty-five years. It is crucial to have a nuanced

appreciation of how time and economic conditions

affect asset value in such cases.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5009 OF 2024

[ARISING FROM SLP (Crl.) No. 10101/2024]

NIRANKAR NATH PANDEY   Vs  STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 

Dated: DECEMBER 04, 2024. 

Print Page

Supreme Court: What is net income for the purpose of computation of compensation in the case of motor accident?

Yet again in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie and Anr.   MANU/SC/0244/2005 : AIR2005SC2157 , the same view was reiterated. However, therein although the words 'net income' has been used but the same itself would ordinarily mean gross income minus the statutory deductions. We must also notice that the said decision has been followed in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kalpana (Smt.) and Ors.   MANU/SC/0498/2007 : AIR2007SC1243 .{Para 22}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5830 of 2007.

Decided On: 12.12.2007

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Indira Srivastava and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Sinha and H.S. Bedi, JJ.

Author: S.B. Sinha, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/8201/2007, 2008 (3) Mh.L.J. 550.

Print Page

Supreme Court: The deduction towards income tax/surcharge alone should be considered to arrive at the net income of the deceased while computing compensation in case of motor accident

This Court in Shyamwati Sharma and Ors. v. Karam Singh and Ors.   MANU/SC/0468/2010 : (2010) 12 SCC 378, while considering the issues of deduction of taxes, contributions etc., for arriving at the figure of net monthly income, held that "while ascertaining the income of the deceased, any deductions shown in the salary certificate as deductions towards GPF, life insurance premium, repayments of loans etc., should not be excluded from the income. The deduction towards income tax/surcharge alone should be considered to arrive at the net income of the deceased.

{Para 12}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7642 OF 2009

MANASVI JAIN  Vs DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P. Sathasivam, C.J.I., Ranjan Gogoi and N.V. Ramana, JJ.

Author: N.V. RAMANA, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0355/2014, 2014 INSC 311.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Where the annual income is in the taxable range, appropriate deduction should be made towards income tax while computing compensation in case of motor accident

The submission of the respondents that the deduction of 30% from the salary is not warranted in view of the decision in Sarla Verma, is not sound. In Sarla Verma, the monthly salary of the deceased was only Rs. 4004/- and the annual income even after taking note of future prospects was Rs. 72072/-. The income was in a range which was exempt from tax, if the permissible deductions were applied. Therefore, this Court did not make any deduction towards income-tax. But this Court made it clear that where the annual income is in the taxable range, appropriate deduction should be made towards tax. In this case as the annual income has been worked out as Rs. 2,48,292/-, appropriate deduction has to be made towards income-tax. The rate of income tax is a varying figure, with reference to taxable income after permissible deductions and the year of assessment. The High Court has assessed the deduction as 30% and on the facts, we do not propose to disturb it. We however make it clear that while ascertaining the income of the deceased, any deductions shown in the salary certificate as deductions towards GPF, life insurance premium, repayments of loans etc., should not be excluded from the income. The deduction towards income tax/surcharge alone should be considered to arrive at the net income of the deceased. {Para 8}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5316 of 2010.

Decided On: 13.07.2010

Shyamwati Sharma and Ors. Vs. Karam Singh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.V. Raveendran and H.L. Gokhale, JJ.

Author: R.V. Raveendran, J.

Citation: (2010) 12 SCC 378,MANU/MP/2569/2022.

Print Page

Whether there is a valid service of notice under Income tax Act if notice is sent on secondary Email ID?

 In the present case on 7th January 2021 the petitioner had filed its Return of Income for AY 2020 -21 and the email id mentioned therein was loktax2016@rediffmail.com therefore the AO ought to have considered this email as provided u/r 127(1)(b)(i) email address available in the income tax return furnished by the addressee to which the communication relates which would be the primary email id or (ii) i.e. email address available in the last income tax return furnished by the addressee. In our view the AO clearly erred in issuing a notice on the secondary email address when there was a primary email address given by the petitioner. It is common knowledge that a secondary email address has to be used as an alternative or in such circumstances when the authority is unable to effect service of any communication on the primary address. There is no prudence in issuing an email on the secondary email address. In our view the AO ought to have sent the notice u/s. 148 to both the primary address and the email address mentioned in the last Return of Income filed to preempt a jurisdictional error on account of valid service; there was neither any cost to it or any prejudice to any party for sending it on more than one email in a given circumstance as in the present case. We see no wrong with the petitioner's refusal to participate in a proceeding vitiated by valid service of notice. This Court in the case of Mrs. Chitra Supekar vs. ITO in Writ Petition No. 15580 of 2022 has held that it was imperative for the AO to have checked if there was a change of address before initiating a proceeding; and that a valid service of notice under section 148 is a condition precedent lest it would be a jurisdictional error.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition Nos. 1983 of 2022, 3037 of 2022 and 3042 of 2022

Assessment Year: 2015-2016;2016-2017;2017-2018

Lok Developers  Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax Circle 24(1) and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Kamal Khata, JJ.

Author: Kamal Khata, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/0524/2023.

Decided On: 15.02.2023.

Citation: 2023 Lawweb (Bom HC ) 18.

Print Page

Whether Husband is Entitled To TDS Credit On Interest Earned From Amount Gifted To His Wife?

A careful perusal of sub-rule (2) indicates that where the

income, on which tax has been deducted at source, is assessable in the hands of a person other than deductee, then credit for the

proportionate tax deducted at source shall be given to such other

person and not the deductee. The proviso to sub-rule (2) provides

for deductee filing a declaration with the deductor giving

particulars of the other person to whom credit is to be given. On

receipt of such declaration, the deductor shall issue certificate for

the deduction of tax at source in the name of such other person.

The crux of section 199 read with Rule 37BA(2) is that if the

income, on which tax has been deducted at source, is chargeable

to tax in the hands of the recipient, then credit for such tax will be allowed to such recipient. If, however, the income is fully or

partly chargeable to tax in the hands of some other person because of the operation of any provision, like section 64 in the extant case, the proportionate credit for tax deducted at source should be allowed to such other person who is chargeable to tax in respect of such income, notwithstanding the fact that he is not the recipient of income. It is with a view to regularise the allowing of credit for tax deducted at source to the person other than recipient of income, that the proviso to Rule 37BA(2) has been enshrined necessitating the furnishing of particulars of such other person by the recipient for enabling the deductor to issue TDS certificate in the name of the other person. The proviso to Rule 37BA(2) is just a procedural aspect of giving effect to the mandate of section 199 for allowing credit to the other person in whose hands the income is chargeable to tax. The entire purpose of this exercise of allowing credit to the other person is to ensure that the benefit of tax deducted at source is availed once and that too, by the right person, who is chargeable to tax in respect of such income. It is just to streamline the procedure for giving effect to this intent and rule out the possibility of taking any inappropriate credit for the amount of tax deducted at source, firstly, by the recipient who is not chargeable to tax and secondly, by the person who is rightly chargeable to tax in respect of such income, that the procedural provision has been put in place in Rule 37BA(2). One needs to draw a line of distinction between substantive provision [section 199 read with Rule 37BA(2) without proviso] and the procedural provision [proviso to Rule 37BA(2)]. Non-compliance of a procedural provision, which is otherwise directory in nature, cannot disturb the writ of a substantive provision. {Para 6}

7. Adverting to the facts of the extant case, it is seen that out of

total interest income credited to assessee’s wife as per Form

No.26AS amounting to Rs.39.26 lakh, she included interest from

SBI in her total income to the extent of Rs.1,84,212/-. The

assessee included the remaining interest of Rs.37.42 lakh in his

income because of the applicability of section 64 of the Act. The

assesse and his wife claimed proportionate tax credit, which totals

up to Rs.2,94,474/-. This deciphers that the total interest income

received by the assessee’s wife got taxed partly in her own

assessment and partly in the assessment of her husband, the

assessee in question, as per the mandate of section 64. The

benefit of TDS has also been claimed accordingly. Merely

because the assessee’s wife did not furnish declaration to the bank

in terms of proviso to Rule 37BA(2), the amount of tax deducted

at source, which is otherwise with the Department, cannot be

allowed to remain with it eternally without allowing any

corresponding credit to the person who has been subjected to tax

in respect of such income. As the substantive provision of section

199 talks of granting credit for tax deducted at source to the other

person, who is lawfully taxable in respect of such income, we are

satisfied that the matching credit for tax deducted at source must

also be allowed to him. In view of the fact that the tax of

Rs.2,80,656/- has actually been deducted at source on the interest

income of Rs.37.42 lakh, we hold that the credit for such TDS

should be allowed to the assessee, who has been subjected to tax

in respect of such income. This ground is allowed.

 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

PUNE BENCH, ‘A’ PUNE

BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND

SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं.

/ ITA No.675/PUN/2022

नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2021-22

Anil Ratanlal Bohora, Vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Nashik

आदेश / ORDER

PER R.S. SYAL, VP :

Date of pronouncement 19-01-2023

Print Page

Supreme Court: Profit-oriented Educational Institutions not entitled to tax emption under Section 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

 86. The conclusions of this court are summarized as follows:

a. It is held that the requirement of the charitable institution, society or trust etc., to ‘solely’ engage itself in education or educational activities, and not engage in any activity of profit, means that such institutions cannot have objects which are unrelated to education. In other words, all objects of the society, trust etc., must relate to imparting education or be in relation to educational activities.

b. Where the objective of the institution appears to be profit-oriented, such institutions would not be entitled to approval under Section 10(23C) of the IT Act. At the same time, where surplus accrues in a given year or set of years per se, it is not a bar, provided such surplus is generated in the course of providing education or educational activities.

c. The seventh proviso to Section 10(23C), as well as Section 11(4A) refer to profits which may be ‘incidentally’ generated or earned by the charitable institution. In the present case, the same is applicable only to those institutions which impart education or are engaged in activities connected to education.

d. The reference to ‘business’ and ‘profits’ in the seventh proviso to Section 10(23C) and Section 11(4A) merely means that the profits of business which is ‘incidental’ to educational activity - as explained in the earlier part of the judgment i.e., relating to education such as sale of text books, providing school bus facilities, hostel facilities, etc.

e. The reasoning and conclusions in American Hotel (supra) and Queen's Education Society (supra) so far as they pertain to the interpretation of expression ‘solely’ are hereby disapproved. The judgments are accordingly overruled to that extent.

f. While considering applications for approval under Section 10(23C), the Commissioner or the concerned authority as the case may be under the second proviso is not bound to examine only the objects of the institution. To ascertain the genuineness of the institution and the manner of its functioning, the Commissioner or other authority is free to call for the audited accounts or other such documents for recording satisfaction where the society, trust or institution genuinely seeks to achieve the objects which it professes. The observations made in American Hotel (supra) suggest that the Commissioner could not call for the records and that the examination of such accounts would be at the stage of assessment. Whilst that reasoning undoubtedly applies to newly set up charities, trusts etc. the proviso under Section 10(23C) is not confined to newly set up trusts - it also applies to existing ones. The Commissioner or other authority is not in any manner constrained from examining accounts and other related documents to see the pattern of income and expenditure.

g. It is held that wherever registration of trust or charities is obligatory under state or local laws, the concerned trust, society, other institution etc. seeking approval under Section 10(23C) should also comply with provisions of such state laws. This would enable the Commissioner or concerned authority to ascertain the genuineness of the trust, society etc. This reasoning is reinforced by the recent insertion of another proviso of Section 10(23C) with effect from 01.04.2021.

In the Supreme Court of India

(Before Uday U. Lalit, C.J. and S. Ravindra Bhat and P.S. Narasimha, JJ.)

Civil Appeal No. 3795 of 2014

New Noble Educational Society Vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax 1

Decided on October 19, 2022

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1458

Print Page

Supreme Court: Income Tax Returns And Audit Reports Are Reliable Evidence To Determine Income Of Deceased in motor accident claim petition

  In contrast, the High Court set aside the same on the ground

that the income earned was out of capital assets and cannot be said to

have been earned out of personal skills of the deceased. It

consequently went on to determine the income of the Deceased on a

notional basis as per his educational qualification. Unfortunately,

such an approach, in our opinion, is erroneous in view of the

decisions of this court in Amrit Bhanu Shali v National Insurance

Co. Ltd.10 and Kalpanaraj v Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn.11

wherein this court has held that documents such as income tax

returns and audit reports are reliable evidence to determine the

income of the deceased. Hence, we are obliged to modify the

compensation, especially when neither any additional evidence has been produced to showcase that the income of the Deceased was contrary to the amount mentioned in the audit reports nor it is the stand taken by the Insurance Company that the said reports inflated the income. {Para 14}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7046 OF 2022

K. Ramya & Ors. Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Author: Surya Kant, J.

DATED: 30.09.2022

Print Page

Can the Income Tax department refuse to release documents to the assessee if SLP is pending Supreme court?

 Even otherwise, the statute confers authority to grant

authorisation for retaining the documents beyond the order of

assessment only till the proceedings under the Act is completed.

The word “proceedings under this Act” is a clear indication that

the power of the officers empowered to grant authorisation is

available only till the statutory proceedings are completed. Once

the statutory proceedings are completed, the authorities under

the statute are denuded of the power to grant further

authorisation. {Para 20}

21. The word proceeding is a term of wide importance and

it includes the original proceedings as well as the appellate

proceedings as it is trite law that an appeal is a continuation of

the original proceedings (see the decision in State of Tamil

Nadu and Others v. S. Subramaniam [(1996) 7 SCC 509]. In

the context in which the word ‘proceedings’ appear in section

132(8), it can be held to be used in a very comprehensive sense

to include even revisional proceedings, provided the same is

invoked under the statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act.

Thus an assessment proceeding, appellate proceeding, and even

revisional proceeding are all “proceedings under this Act”.

22. The proceedings under this Act expired by the disposal

of the appeal by this Court, as evidenced by Ext.P4 judgment

dated 08-01-2010. Thereafter, no proceedings under this Act are

in existence. On the contrary, the special leave petition having

been filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India cannot

be regarded as a proceeding under this Act. As a taxing statute,

strict interpretation is to be adopted and that being so, recourse

by the assessee to the provisions of the Constitution by filing a

special leave petition before the Supreme Court cannot be

regarded as 'a proceeding under this Act'. Thus by the disposal

of the appeal filed before the High Court in I.T.A. No.819 of 2009

and I.T.A. No.1326 of 2009, the statutory authority lost its power

to grant further authorisation to retain the documents.

Therefore, even on this count, the respondents are not

authorised or justified in retaining the documents of title seized

by them under section 132 of the Act.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) NO. 12849 OF 2021

UDAYA SOUNDS Vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PRESENT

 MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 

Print Page

Good article on Capital gain valuation for Income tax purpose

 Submitted by 

A. Mohammed Ibrahim. B. ARch, FICA.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FqqUFF8ZkGXx_ZbC_efH3DuYU0lZ9vxJ/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116244845031154956013&rtpof=true&sd=true

Print Page

Income Tax TDS rates for AY 2022-2023

 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sgk3_qUp0-24WXt0NQa2BcLSqsI1Oaj4/view?usp=sharing

Print Page

Under which circumstances court can permit the consolidation of criminal cases?

  Perusal of the above table reveals that the respondent has

preferred these complaints on the very same material, evidence and documents and allegations in all the three complaints are to a large extent quite same. The petitioner is, thus, facing three separate trials in all the three complaints before the same Magistrate for not declaring the fact of having a foreign account to the Income Tax Authorities. {Para 15} 

16. The ingredients of Section 220 of Cr.P.C. have been defined in

Chandni Srivastava Vs. CBI & Ors. decided on 9th Feb., 2016 in

W.P.(CRL) 3486/2018 & Crl.M.A. 47373/2018 Page no.15 of 17

WP(Crl.) 743/2013 in which it was held that Sec. 220 of the Cr.P.C. permits of one trial even if many offences are committed, if such offences form part of the same transaction, the rationale for such an exception being that in such circumstances, separate trials may lead to conflicting judgments.

17. In ‘Mohan Baitha vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 1490’, the

Supreme Court interpreted Section 220 of the Code and observed as

under:-

"It may be noticed that under Section 220 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, offences more than

one committed by the same persons could be tried

at one trial, if they can be held to be in one series

of acts, so as to form the same transaction. The

expression "same transaction" from its very nature

is incapable of an exact definition. It is not

intended to be interpreted in any artificial or

technical sense. Common sense and the ordinary

use of language must decide whether on the facts

of a particular case, it can be held to be in one

transaction. It is not possible to enunciate any

comprehensive formula of universal application

for the purpose of determining whether two or

more acts constitute the same transaction. But the

circumstances of a given case indicating proximity

of time, unity or proximity of place, continuity of

action and community of purpose or design are the

factors for deciding whether certain acts form parts

of the same transaction or not. Therefore, a series

of acts whether are so connected together as to

form the same transaction is purely a question of

fact to be decided on the aforesaid criteria".

18. The broad test, therefore, for ascertaining whether offences

charged form part of the same transaction is whether the other set of offences, even though distinct and separate, have been committed for facilitating the commission of the main offence. If the offences alleged involve similar persons and there is a hint of continuity of action, it is then part of the same transaction. Thus, if the substratum of the series of acts is common, then those acts do constitute same transaction.

19. As discussed above, the three complaints in fact are a part of the same transaction. The first complaint has been filed on the assumption that petitioner is holding an undisclosed foreign account and two subsequent complaints are nothing but to arrive at a figure to meet the ingredients of the first offence. The chart given above reveals that the allegations, documents and nature of evidence are same in all the three complaints. In these circumstances, it will be in the interest of justice to have a common trial for all the three complaints.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 Pronounced on: November 24th, 2020

 W.P.(CRL) 3486/2018 & Crl.M.A. 47373/2018

PARAMINDER SINGH KALRA  Vs THE COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX 

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI

Print Page

Whether judgment debtor can deduct income tax out of mesne profits paid under decree of court?

The above definition of rent makes it abundantly clear that rent is a payment by whatever name you call it for use of any land or building. Thus, merely because the rent awarded by the Court was called by the Court as damages mesne profits does not mean that it ceases to be income of the Decree Holder. Similarly, I consider that interest over the unpaid amount would qualify as income since the unpaid amount is treated as something lying deposited with the Judgment Debtor. As, a person has to pay income tax on his deposits in the bank or in FDs, he is liable to pay income tax on the interest received by him under Court orders for unpaid amounts. The judgments cited by the Decree Holder are of no help since the judgments deal with different facts and circumstances. In Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal MANU/SC/0817/2004 : (2005) 9 SCC 524 the Supreme Court observed that TDS could not be deducted on the payments towards compensation/damages for mental agony and harassment. The Supreme Court was not dealing with mesne profits in lieu of occupation and use of the premises. The view taken by the Calcutta High Court in my opinion is not the correct view. Delhi High Court in case of Mrs. Kanti Singh and Ors. v. The Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. 2001 III AD (Delhi) 686 had given no opinion about TDS and only stated that the Court cannot go behind the decree.

7. I, find no force in the plea taken by Decree Holder that Judgment Debtor could not have deducted tax at source and deposited it with the government when Judgment had to pay rent mesne profits under orders of the Court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Ex. Appl. No. 405/2009 in Ex. P. No. 351/2008

Decided On: 23.12.2009

Five Star Engg. and Agents Pvt. Ltd. Vs.  P.B. State Industrial Development Corporation

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.N. Dhingra, J.

Print Page