These judgements are uploaded by our esteemed readers. If you have a judgement on an important topic that you would like to share with others, please use this form to upload it
Global Waste Management Cell Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 254(2) : Rectification of mistake apparent on record – Subsequent judgment of Supreme Court cannot be ground for recall/rectification – Tribunal having followed binding jurisdictional High Court judgment at the time of passing original order – No mistake apparent from record – Miscellaneous Application dismissed. [S. 36(1)(va), 43B] The Assessing Officer, while processing the… Read More ...
Shalina Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 226 : Collection and mode of recovery - Recovery of tax –Pendency of appeal before CIT( A) - Stay of demand – Non-speaking order– Application of mind – Principles of natural justice - Allowing the writ, the Court held that the order rejecting the assessee’s stay application was a non-speaking order passed without considering… Read More ...
Siemens Limited v. DCIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 154 : Rectification – Mandatory requirement of DIN – Back-dated rectification order – Limitation – Violation of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 – Order deemed never issued – Writ maintainable despite alternate remedy. [S. 119, 154(3), 154(7), 250, 292B, Art. 226] The assessee challenged a rectification order purportedly dated 29-03-2024 passed u/s 154 giving effect… Read More ...
Shree Raj Crystal Co-op. Housing Society Ltd Vs Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru (ITAT Mumbai)
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI: The assessee has earned interest income to the tune of Rs. 4,85,800/- on FDR maintained with Saraswati Co-operative Bank and claimed the same as deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act which was disallowed by the Authorities below by their respective orders. Admittedly identical issue has already been decided in favour of the then Assessees by… Read More ...
Kanak Impex (India) Ltd (Supreme Court)
SUPREME COURT: S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Information from Sales-Tax Department-Failure to prove genuineness of purchases-Order of the Appellate Tribunal holding that only profit estimation at 12. 5% was set aside-Order of the Assessing Officer confirming the addition of entire purchases a bogus under section 69C of the Income-tax Act was affirmed by High Court - SLP… Read More ...
CIT (E) v. Hyderabad Cricket Association (Supreme Court)
SUPREME COURT: S. 261 : Appeal - Supreme Court -Limitation : Condonation of delay- Strictures-Departmental delay of 524 days-Unsatisfactory explanation-Internal procedural delays such as multiple scrutiny reports, repeated vetting and lack of timely direction for filing SLP held to be avoidable-However, considering that other matters on similar issue were already entertained, Supreme Court condoned the delay as… Read More ...
Awadhnarayan Bhagwanta Singh v. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 56 : Income from Other Sources-Stamp duty valuation-Difference between agreement date and registration date–Allotment letter treated as “agreement”–Part consideration paid through banking channel before agreement–Stamp duty valuation to be adopted as on date of allotment–Addition deleted. [S. 50C ,56(2)(vii)(b).] Where the assessee purchased a flat for ₹1,10,00,000 and the AO made an addition of… Read More ...
Snehdham Trust & Ors v. ACIT (Gujarat High Court)
Gujarat High Court: S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Faceless regime-Notice issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after 01.04.2022-Held to be valid-The Court clarified that paragraph 3 of the Scheme requires only automated allocation, not faceless issuance-Writ petitions dismissed-Not followed Hexaware Technologies Limited v. ACIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225/ 464 ITR 430 / 338… Read More ...
ITO v. Romil Diam (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus Purchases- Accommodation entries Assessing Officer disallowed 100% purchases as bogus purchases-CIT( A) restricted the disallowance to 8% of purchases against 100% of disallowed by the Assessing Officer-on appeal by Revenue the Tribunal affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer and confirmed 100% of bogus purchases. [S. 37, 68, 143(3), 147,… Read More ...
MS J M JAIN PROP SH JEETMAL CHORARIA versus UNION OF INDIA (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court: The GST Department and even other Departments, including the IT Department ought to be careful while citing judicial precedents, specially if the same has been produced or accessed through Artificial Intelligence software, as there is a clear possibility of the citations themselves being fake Judicial precedents clearly demonstrate the risk of Artificial Intelligence hallucinating, by… Read More ...