Supreme Court Judgments — 2023

The Supreme Court held that the words 'within' and 'in' cannot include what is outside the port. The 2011 Notification did not contemplate activities like storage tanks outside the port limits, and allowing such would introduce chaos and uncertainty regarding the definition of 'port area'. The Court found that the storage tanks were not permitted as they were not located 'in' the Chennai Port. Regarding the pipeline, the Court noted it was located in a permitted zone. The question of whether the pipeline could continue to be used if storage tanks were demolished was left to the relevant District Coastal Zonal Management Authority to decide. The Court granted the appellant six months to demolish the storage tanks and one month to pay the ordered compensation. The appeals were partly allowed.

The Supreme Court held that the law regarding the interpretation of Section 2(15) has changed due to the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority judgment. Therefore, the matter needs to be reconsidered to determine if the assessee's receipts qualify for exemption.

The Supreme Court held that the concerned goods are not 'portable' as defined under Tariff Item 8471 30 10. Portability requires more than just low weight, encompassing ease of transit and durability for daily commute.

The Supreme Court held that interest under Section 158BFA(1) is leviable for belated filing of a return under Section 158BC, even if the notice was issued under Section 158BD, and that the amendment to Section 158BD was clarificatory. The Court also held that assessees are not liable to pay surcharge under Section 113.

The Supreme Court held that the purpose of Section 10(26AAA) is to grant income tax exemption to residents of Sikkim. The exclusion of Indians who settled in Sikkim prior to April 26, 1975, from the definition of 'Sikkimese' was found to be arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article 14. The Court reasoned that these individuals formed the same class as registered 'Sikkim Subjects' and were entitled to the exemption. The proviso excluding Sikkimese women marrying non-Sikkimese after April 1, 2008, was struck down as violative of Articles 14, 15, and 21, deeming it gender-based discrimination. To fill the legislative vacuum and prevent unconstitutionality, the Court directed that until Parliament amends the Explanation, individuals domiciled in Sikkim on or before April 26, 1975, even if not registered as 'Sikkim Subjects', shall be entitled to the exemption. The proviso excluding Sikkimese women marrying non-Sikkimese after April 1, 2008, was struck down. The Court invoked Article 142 to issue these directions.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the ITAT's findings of fact without framing a substantial question of law. The Court allowed the appeals, upholding the ITAT's deletion of additions.