Direct Taxes


1.     Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Export Company in Civil Appeal Nos. 4339-4340 of 2018 dated 24.04.2018


  • The amendment to section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010 with effect from 01.04.2010 which provides that all TDS made during the previous year can be deposited with the Government by the due date of filing the return of income, should be interpreted liberally and equitably and should be applied retrospectively from the date when section 40(a)(ia) was inserted in the Act, i.e. with effect from the A.Y. 2005-2006, so that an assessee should not suffer unintended and deleterious consequences beyond what the object and purpose of the provision mandates. The Apex Court has concluded that the amendment was curative in nature and should be given retrospective operation as if the amended provisions existed even at the time of its insertion.




2.     Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd. in Civil Appeal Nos. 8489-8490 of 2013 dated 24.04.2018


  • If deductions on account of freight, telecommunication and insurance attributable to the delivery of computer software u/s 10A of the Act are allowed only from the Export Turnover, i.e. the numerator, but not from the Total Turnover, i.e. the denominator, it would give rise to an inadvertent, unlawful, meaningless and illogical result, which would cause grave injustice to the assessee, which could have never been the intention of the legislature. The Apex Court has held that as the object of the formula is to arrive at the profit from the export business, expenses excluded from the export turnover, i.e. the numerator, have to be excluded from total turnover, i.e. the denominator also.




3.     Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. in Civil Appeal Nos. 6949-6950 of 2004 dated 24.04.2018


  • The short issue in the instant case was weather waiver of loan by the creditor is taxable as a perquisite u/s 28(iv) of the Act or as a remission of liability u/s 41(1) of the Act. The Apex Court in this regard held as under:


(a)  Section 28(iv) which specifically says that the benefit or perquisite shall be in a form other than money, is not applicable in this case, therefore, the said amount could not be taxed under the provisions of section 28(iv) of the Act.


(b)  Section 41(1) particularly deals with remission of trading liability only, whereas in the instant case, waiver of loan amounts to cessation of a liability other than a trading liability, hence the present case would not fall under section 41(1) of the Act.


Posted on: 03-05-2018