1.Vania Silk Mills ( P) Ltd. v.

CIT [ (1991) 191 ITR 647 ( SC) ]/ [TS-3-SC-1991]

This decision dealt with another important principle of interpretation of tax law,
namely that a term or an expression, should not be interpreted in isolation but has to
take colour from associated words and expressions and that its meaning will have to
be restricted to the sense analogues to them. If the Legislature intended to extend the
definition, then it ought to provide as such. The expression being interpreted was '
extinguishment of right' and the Supreme Court held that the expression was used in
the context of ' transfer' under the Income- tax Act, 1961 ( Act), the expression could
not be said to include extinguishment of right independent of or otherwise than on
account of transfer. In this context, it held that loss of asset by fire did not amount to a
transfer and that money received from the insurance company was not received on
account of extinguishment of rights in an asset.

2.Vodafone International Holdings B. V. v. UOI [ 2012] 341 ITR 1 ( SC) / [TS-23-

SC-2012]

Perhaps the most debated, discussed and one which put India on the global map; this
decision was one which put into perspective, India's right to tax a transaction
happening outside its shores. The Supreme Court while delivering its decision
debated, discussed and gave its point of a catena of issues. The ' look at' as compared
to the ' look through' approach was advocated and was made famous by this decision.
This decision was debated so hotly during the court proceedings and after the decision
was delivered that it probably has the most literature dedicated to an Indian tax case,
surpassing McDowell which was very greatly debated. I am told that this decision is
now part of the curriculum for students of international tax at foreign universities also.
Much has been written about the facts and the decision itself so I would refrain from
doing so. I would only conclude by saying that for the next decade ( or may be even
longer) this will be the most recalled and remembered Indian tax decision, globally.

3.Atiabari Tea Co. v. State of Assam

4.Automobile Transport v. Rajasthan.

5.International tourist corporation v. State of Haryana

6.Jindal case

7.State of Madras v. Nataraja Mudaliar,

8.In Koteswar v. K.R.B. & Co,

9.In District Collector, Hyderabad v. Ibrahim,.

1
10.In Fatehchand Himmatlal v. State of Maharashtra, 

11.Bolani Iron Ores v. State of Orissa.

12.G.K. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu

13.International tourist corporation v. State of Haryana

14 Brij Lal v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2010] [328 ITR 477

15 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dhariya Construction [2010] [328 ITR

515]

16 Ajanta Pharma v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2010] [327 ITR 305]

17 Stocks Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2010] [327 ITR 323]

18 GE India Technology Centre Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax

[2010] [327 ITR 456]

19 CIT v. Samsung Electronics Company Limited [323 ITR 456]

20 Transmission Corporation case (1999) 239 ITR 587 (SC)

21 Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat v. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. [2010] [233 CTR

209]

22 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers [2010] [326 ITR
1]

23 Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi v. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [2010] [234 CTR 146]

24 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petro Products (P) Limited [2010] [322
ITR 158]

25 Income Tax Officer v. Arihant Tiles and Marbles (P) Limited [2010] [320 ITR 79]

26 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Emptee Poly–Yarn (P) Limited [2010] [320 ITR
665]

27 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Oracle Software India Limited [2010] [32O ITR
546]

28 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sahib Chits (Delhi) (P.V.T.) Limited [2010] [328
ITR 342, Delhi]

2
29 Marubeni India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2010] [328 ITR
306, Delhi]

30 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Orbital Communications (P) Ltd. [2010] [327 ITR
560, Delhi]

31 Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2010]
[328 ITR 81,
Bombay High Court]

32 Pinegrove International Charitable Trust v. UOI [2010] [327 ITR 73, Punjab and
Haryana High Court]

33 Nutan Warehousing Company Limited v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

[2010] [326 ITR 94, Mumbai]

34 Commissioner of Income-tax v. Smt. Sita Devi Juneja [2010] [325 ITR 593,
Punjab and Haryana High Court]

35 Commissioner of Income Tax v. HB Stock Holdings [2010] [325 ITR 316, Delhi
High Court]

36 Capital Asset – Agricultural land Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lal Singh

[2010] [325 ITR 588, Punjab and Haryana High Court]

37 CIT v. Satinder Pal Singh [2010, 188 Taxmann, 54]

38 Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-VI v. Teehdrive (India) (P.) Ltd [2010] [232

CTR 117, Delhi High Court]

39 Kalyan Ala Barot v. M.H. Rathod [2010] [ 328 ITR 521, Gujarat

40 Income-tax Act Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills vs Assistant Commissioner of

Income Tax [2010] [231 CTR 368, Madras High Court]

41 Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd. v. ACIT [2010] [45 DTR 217, Kerala High Court]

42 C.I.T v. Idea Cellular Limited [2009, 325 ITR 148]. Soul v. Deputy Commissioner
of Income Tax [2010, 323 ITR 305, Delhi High Court]

43 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Swapna Roy [2010] [233 CTR 10,
Allahabad High Court]

44 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Saranpal Singh HUF [2010] [48 DTR 95, Punjab
and Haryana High Court]

3
45 Commissioner of Income-tax v. Krone Communication Ltd. [2010][ 233 CTR 203,
Karnataka High Court]

46 Dinosaur Steels Ltd. v. JCIT28, Southern Industrial Corporation Ltd v. C.I.T.29

and C.I.T. v. Bindal Industries Ltd.30. 32. Estimation of income – Civil contractors
Samurai Techno Trading Corporation Ltd. v. C.I.T. [2010] [37 DTR 386, Kerala High
Court]

47 Export turnover Zylog Systems Limited v. Income Tax Officer [2010] [ITA Nos.
1138 and 1141/Mds/2007, Chennai Special Bench]

48 Sulzer India Limited v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [2010] [42 SOT 457,
Mumbai Special Bench]

49 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait [2010, 41 SOT
290] [Mumbai Special Bench].

50 Scientific Atlanta India Technology Pvt Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of

Income Tax [2010] [37 DTR46, Chennai Special Bench]

51 Centurion Investment & International Trading Co. (P) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer,
Ward 3(2), New Delhi37

52 Abbas Nabi Shaikh v. ACIT [2010] [8 Taxmann.com 72, Ahmedabad]

53 Scope Royal Marwar Tobacco (P) Limited [2009, 120 TTJ 387, Ahmedabad]

54 LMJ International v. DCIT [2009, 119 TTJ 214, Kolkata]

55 KGR Express v. JCIT [ITA No. 494/vsk/2007, Vishakhapatnam]

56 A.N. Rangaswamy v. ACIT [2010] [134 TTJ 723, Bangalore]

57 Maharashtra Academy of Engineering & Educational Research v. Commissioner

of Income Tax [2010] [133 TTJ 706, Pune]

58 M/s. Vodithala Education Society Hyderabad v. ADIT (Exemptions)-II,

Hyderabad [20 SOT 353] M/s. Vodithala Education Society Hyderabad v. ADIT
(Exemptions)-II, Hyderabad [MP No 43/H/08 arising out of 20 SOT 353] ii. Deputy
CIT v. Cosmopolitan Educational society [ 244 ITR 494 , Rajasthan] iii.

59 CIT v. Khalsa Rural Hospital and Nursing Training Institute [304 ITR 20, Punjab
and Haryana]

60 P.S. Govindaswamy Naidu & Sons v. ACIT [324 ITR 44, Madras] v. Dera Baba
Jodh Sachiar v. UOI [328 ITR 178, Punjab and Haryana]

4
61 DIT (Exemptions) & Another v. Sri Bela Matha Educational Trust [ 46 DTR 290,
Karnataka]

62 Maa Saraswati Educational Trust v. UOI [194 Taxmann 84, Himachal Pradesh]

63 Governing Body of Ranga Raya Medical College v. ITO [117 ITR 284, AP]

64 Moti Bagh Mutual Aid Education [ 298 ITR 190, Delhi]

65 Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2010]
[328 ITR 81, Bombay High Court]

66 Income-tax Act Commissioner of Income-tax v. Goyal M.G. Gases Ltd [2010]

[ 321 ITR 437, Delhi High Court]

67 Solid Containers Ltd v. DCIT [308 ITR 417]

68 Addl. CIT v. Rollatainers Ltd [2010-TIOL-379-ITAT-DEL]

69 Kalyan Ala Barot v. M.H. Rathod [2010] [328 ITR 521, Gujarat]

70 Samurai Techno Trading Corporation Ltd. v. C.I.T [2010] [37 DTR 386, Kerala
High Court]

71 Zylog Systems Limited v. Income Tax Officer [2010]

72 B. Ramakrishnaiah v. Income Tax Officer [2010] [134 TTJ 600, Hyderabad]

73 Scope Royal Marwar Tobacco (P) Limited [2009, 120 TTJ 387, Ahmedabad]

74 A.N. Rangaswamy v. ACIT [2010] [134 TTJ 723, Bengaluru]

75 Maharashtra Academy of Engineering & Educational Research v. Commissioner

of Income Tax [2010] [133 TTJ 706, Pune

76 Islamaic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka [2003] [6 SCC 697];

77 Himachal Pradesh Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board v.

Commissioner of Income Tax [2010] [42 SOT 343, Chandigarh]

78 Sanofi Pasteur Holding SA v. Department of Revenue

79 CIT vs. Mentor Graphics (Noida) Pvt. Ltd.. 

80 ITO vs. Right Florists Pvt. Ltd

81 IHG IT Services (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO 

5
82 ITO vs. M. Far Hotels Ltd. .

83 Transport Solution Group v. Commissioner Of Central Excise 

84 Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Union of India

85 Dr. Batra's Positive Health Clinic Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka

86 CIT v. M/s Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. (Allahabad High Court)

87 ADIT v. Adani Enterprises Ltd. (Ahmedabad ITAT)

 88 Performing Right Society Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 11 (SC),

89 C.G. Krishnaswami Naidu v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 686 (Mad),

90 Qualcomm Incorporated v. ADIT (Delhi ITAT)

91 Ideal Road Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai

92 M/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II v. M/s Australian Foods India (P)
Ltd.

93 Commissioner of VAT v. Carzonrent India Pvt. Ltd.

94 Satyam Construction Vrs. STO 2008 (17VST 42(O).

95 Mahamad Habib Ummar Vs. Sales Tax Officer 99 STC 16(O)

96 Satyam Construction Vs. STO reported in 2008 (17 VST 42(O)

97 Guljag Industries Vs. CTO (2007) 9 VST 1(SC)

98 ACTO Vrs. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. (2008) 18 VST (SC)

99 Orissa Small Scale Industries Corporation Vrs. State (2009) 23 VST 55(O).

100 Orissa Small Scale Industries Corporation Vs. State (2009) 23 VST 55 (O)

101 Concealment of the income not proved. It should be willful concealment. I/T.
Officer Sirsa v. Shiv Kumar 2005 (2) RCR (Cri.) 833 P&H.

6
 102 I.T. ACT – Concealment of facts – Mere omission is not concealment. K.C.
Builders & anr. v. The Asst. Commissioner of I.I.T., JT 2004(2) SC 100.

103 I.T. Act – Concealment – Mear omission is not concealment. K.C. Builders v.
The Asst. Commissioner of I.I.T., JT 2004(2) (SC) 100.

104 Income Tax Act 1961 – Concealment of income & false statement of verification.
Application for settlement can be filed during he pendency fo which the complaint
should not be field. Ashirvad Enterprises v. State of Bihar, 2004(2) Crimes 335(SC) :
2004 Cri.L.J. 3110 : AIR 2004 SC 4586.

105 Sanction to prosecute. The Company or the party has no right to be heard at this
stage. The Asst. Comm. v. M/s. Velliappa Textiles, 2003(4) Crimes 267(SC) : 2004
Cri.L.J. 1221 : AIR 2004 SC 86.

106 Income tax Act – Conviction of Company – a juristic person is not possible and
hence prosecution cannot be launched against the Co. The Asst. Comm. Bangalore v.
M/s. Velliappa Textiles Ltd., 2003(4) RCR(Cri.) 695(SC): 2004 Cri.L.J. 1221 : AIR
2004 SC 86.

107 Income Tax Act – The assessee obtaining the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme gets
immunity fro all other proceedings including the crl. proceedings. Hira Lal Hari Lal
Bhagwati v. C.B.I. New Delhi, 2003(3) Crimes 100 (SC) : 2003(3)RCR(Cri.) 273 :
AIR 2003 SC 2545 : 2003 Cri.L.J. 3041. v. Mamta Sethi, 2003 SCC(Cri) 1035.

108 Probation of the offender – Not permissible as per section 292 – A of the Act.
U.O.I. v. Mamta Sethi, 2003 SCC(Cri) 1035.

109 Income Tax – loan or deposit exceeding 20,000 in cash is an offence under the
Act if not paid through the Cheque or draft. Asst. Director of Inspector Investigation
v. Kum A. B. Shanthi, 2002(2) Crimes 393 (SC) : AIR 2002 SC 2188.

110 Income tax exemption to university settled in foreign but publishing material for
education in India, is applicable. M/s. Oxford University Press v. Commissioner of
Income tax, JT 2001 (2) (SC) 203 : AIR 2001 SC 886.

111 Income Tax – Religious trust. If entangled in business without feeding poor and
encouraging education, not entitled to exemption. The Asst. Commissioner of Income
Tax Madras v. Thanthi Trust, JT 2001(2) (SC) 229 : AIR 2001 SC 1043.

112 Income tax Act and probation – Probation can be granted under the Act. Union of
India v. Smt. Mamta Sethi, 4(2000) CCR 35(SC).

113 Law given by the High Court or the Supreme Court will get the preference over
the circular issued by the dept, on the same point has no effect. M/s. Hindustan
Aeronautics Ltd. Bangalore v. Commissioner of Income Tax Karnataka, Bangalore,
JT 2000(7) (SC) 82 : AIR 2000 SC 2178.

 114 E. D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [ 1954] 26 ITR 27 (SC) / [TS-1-SC-1954]

7
Tax Nostalgia' s first article was on this decision. This decision is notable because it,
to my mind, gives us clarity on one fundamental principle, that of accrual of income.
It tells us that income accrues to a person when the recipient when an irrevocable right
to receive it vests in the recipient. This to my mind is quite fundamental to any student
of income- tax. The charge of tax gets attracted only on accrual of income in favour of
the taxpayer. It also tells us that profits of a business accrue to its owners at the end of
the previous year, to be precise, on the completion for the last day of the previous
year. This also is fundamental to the taxation of business income. The facts and the
judgement of the majority and the dissenting judge are already a part of the Tax
Nostalgia series and I would not want to repeat them here. When one applies the
principles laid down to the facts of that case, one may probably be a bit puzzled as to
the factual decision arrived at, but undeniably this is one of the first cases that I at
least was given to read to understand certain fundamental concepts and this decision
( not merely for this reason though) has retained a special place in my mind.

115 CIT v. Vishakhapatnam Port Trust [ 1983] 144 ITR 416 (AP)

This decision is the first decision that a student of taxation of cross border transactions
generally reads. It deals with the interplay between the provisions of the domestic
income- tax law and the Double Tax Avoidance Agreements ( DTAA) that India has
entered into with the Governments of other nations to eliminate or reduce double
taxation.

116 McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO [ 1985] 154 ITR 148 ( SC) / [TS-1-SC-1985]

Probably one of the most debated decisions when it was first delivered, ( I had barely
started my articleship then), this decision remains landmark in terms of explaining the
difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. It also clearly frowned upon tax
avoidance, a legal way of avoiding tax and held that tax planning was legitimate
provided it was within the framework of the law. Colourable devices cannot be part of
tax planning and it is wrong to encourage or entertain the belief that it is honourable
to avoid the payment of tax by resorting to dubious methods. It is the obligation of
every citizen to pay taxes honestly without resorting to subterfuges. This decision
even though not completely giving a go by to looking at the legal form of a
transaction for the purpose of levy of tax, did draw the line when it came to approving
transactions which were entered into only for the purpose of avoidance of payment of
tax. Probably the world has come a long way since then with General Anti Avoidance
Rules ( GAAR) now being a part of the tax legislation in several countries and the
world debating on the morality of multinationals like Google or Starbucks. This
decision clearly was the guidance for an important principle that stretching of the law
beyond a point would be counterproductive.