May 2025

In this landmark judgment on Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provisions, the Supreme Court of India decisively ruled in favor of the assessee company, Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd., holding that the Assessing Officer cannot recompute book profits under section 115J by substituting depreciation rates. The Court reinforced the binding precedent of Apollo Tyres Ltd., establishing that the Assessing Officer’s role under section 115J is limited to verifying compliance with Companies Act accounting requirements and making only those adjustments explicitly authorized in the statutory Explanation. This judgment provides crucial clarity on the interpretation of ‘book profits’ for MAT purposes, protecting companies from arbitrary reassessments of properly maintained and certified accounts. The decision has significant implications for companies subject to MAT provisions, ensuring predictability and limiting revenue authorities’ discretion in challenging depreciation methods consistently followed by assessees.

In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India clarified the distinction between taxable business profits and non-taxable capital gains arising from winding up sales. The Court held that when a company sells assets as part of winding up its business to realise capital, any profit constitutes capital appreciation, not business income, even if the assets sold could theoretically be traded. The decision establishes that the character of a sale (trading vs. winding up) depends on the factual context and purpose, not merely on the company’s memorandum powers. This principle protects taxpayers from income tax on gains from liquidation sales.

In this landmark Supreme Court judgment, the Court clarified the legal principles governing ‘succession’ under section 25(4) of the Indian Income Tax Act, favoring the assessee. The case involved a father-son business transfer where the father retained certain assets to settle liabilities, but the son continued the export business identically. The Court held that succession occurs when there is a change in ownership, transfer of the entire business, and preservation of its identity and continuity, even if minor assets are omitted or retained for collateral purposes like debt discharge. It also established that such determinations are mixed questions of law and fact, subject to judicial review, reinforcing the High Court’s jurisdiction to intervene when legal tests are misapplied. This decision provides crucial guidance for assessing business succession in tax relief claims.

In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Dipak Misra, overturned the Allahabad High Court’s decision that had quashed a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core issue was the High Court’s reliance on the principle of non-traverse—treating the revenue’s general denial in its counter affidavit as an admission of the assessee’s claim that no ‘reason to believe’ existed for the search. The Supreme Court, acting as the apex judicial authority, firmly rejected this procedural approach, underscoring the substantive nature of search powers. It ruled that the validity of a search under Section 132 hinges on whether the competent authority recorded reasons based on information, a fact to be ascertained by examining the confidential file, not pleadings technicalities. The Court remanded the matter, directing the High Court to examine the file and adjudicate afresh. This decision reinforces the procedural rigor required in search cases, balancing revenue powers with judicial scrutiny of recorded reasons.

In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India definitively settled the contentious issue of service-tax applicability on lottery ticket transactions. The Court, comprising Justices S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling that lottery tickets constitute actionable claims rather than ‘goods’ as defined under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Consequently, the promotion and marketing of such tickets cannot be subjected to service-tax under the ‘business auxiliary service’ category of the Finance Act, 1994. The Court further held that the 2008 amendment introducing an Explanation to section 65(19) is prospective, not retrospective. This judgment reinforces the principle of strict interpretation in taxation matters and clarifies the legal character of lottery transactions in India’s fiscal framework.

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court overruled its prior decision in Velliappa Textiles, establishing that companies ARE prosecutable for offences carrying mandatory imprisonment sentences. The Court held that judicial discretion allows imposing only fines on corporate entities when custodial sentences are impractical, ensuring corporations cannot evade liability for serious economic offences under FERA, IT Act, and similar statutes. This decision aligns with modern principles of corporate criminal liability and prevents companies from exploiting legal technicalities to avoid prosecution.

In a landmark ruling on share premium taxation, the Madras High Court overturned lower authorities’ decision to tax Rs. 90.18 crores as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The Court established that allotment of shares to settle pre-existing liabilities through book adjustments, without actual cash receipt, does not constitute ‘cash credit.’ This judgment reinforces the principle that Section 68 applies only to unexplained monetary receipts, not to accounting entries for liability settlement. The decision provides crucial clarity for companies using share issuance for debt restructuring.

In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Punalur Paper Mills Ltd., the Kerala High Court reinforced the binding authority of CBDT circulars under section 119 of the Income Tax Act, ruling that they provide enforceable administrative relief even if they deviate from statutory language. The Court dismissed the Revenue’s petition, upholding the Tribunal’s decision that extra shift depreciation was correctly allowed on all machinery per Circular dated 28.09.1970, overriding the CIT’s revision under section 263 which relied on judicial precedent instead of the circular.