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
Nirmal Kumar Agrawal v. ACIT
NAGPUR TRIBUNAL : S. 69 : Unexplained investments- Unexplained jewellery-Search-Considering the assessee’s age, social status, occupation, family background and customary gifts received on various occasions, the Tribunal held the possession of 48.9 gms to be reasonable. Diamond and precious-stone-studded jewellery cannot be excluded from the benefit of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 merely because it contains diamonds or precious… Read More ...
DELHITAXBARASSOCIATION vs UNION OF INDIA
Delhi: The Delhi High Court's interim order in Delhi Tax Bar Association v. Union of India raises two important issues. The first concerns the taxability of statutory allowances payable to High Court & Supreme Court Judges under the new tax regime. The second is the Court's unusual disclosure of its own tax position before hearing the… Read More ...
Jamna Devi Shikshan Sansthan v. CIT(E)
Jaipur ITAT: Rent Increase Paid to Specified Persons Cannot, on Mere Assumption, Justify Denial of Section 12AB Registration: Jaipur ITAT Directs Grant of Registration Read More ...
Shri Ranbir Singh v. DCIT, Central-2
CHANDIGARH TRIBUNAL : S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Award cost-Additional evidence-Conditional remand before the Assessing Officer-Demonetisation-Unexplained cash deposits, unsecured loans, sundry creditors and agricultural income-The assessee should, within one month from the date of the order, plant 500 trees and furnish documentary evidence thereof, or deposit the requisite cost with the NGO. [S. 68, 143(3)] The assessee, an individual,… Read More ...
Nikhil Nagindas Modi v. Dy. CIT
Bombay High Court: S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Validity of unsigned approval-The approval under section 151 dated 30-3-2021 was unsigned, the Assessing Officer had no valid jurisdiction to issue the notice under section 148; consequently, the notice under section 148 and all consequential proceedings were quashed- The Court also held that section 292BC, being applicable retrospectively… Read More ...
Rajesh R. Hemrajani v. ITAT (Bom.)(HC)
Bombay High Court: S. 255 : Appellate Tribunal-Procedure-Functions-Duties-Pronouncement of orders-Tribunal cannot repeatedly release matters without delivering judgment-ITAT directed to strictly adhere to the time-limit prescribed under Rule 34 and pronounce orders within 60 days, or in exceptional cases within 90 days. [S. 254(1), 255(4), ITAT Rules, 1963, Rule 34(5)(c), Art. 226] The petitioner challenged the repeated release of… Read More ...
Pujya Sindhi Panchayat Trust v. ITO (E) (Mum.) (Trib.)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Registration granted during pendency of appellate proceedings-Benefit of exemption under sections 11 and 12 available for earlier assessment year-Matter remanded to Assessing Officer. [S. 12, 12AA, 250] The assessee-trust claimed exemption under sections 11 and 12. The Assessing Officer denied the claim on the ground that registration under… Read More ...
Ashish Gems v. ACIT (Mum.)(Trib.)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 147 : Reassessment-Failure to dispose of objections to reopening by a separate speaking order before completion of assessment- Additional grounds-Reassessment void and liable to be quashed. [S. 69C, 143(3), 148] The assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment on the ground that although objections were filed against the reasons recorded for reopening, the Assessing… Read More ...
Dr. Ernest Borges Memorial Fund v. ITO (E) (Mum.) (Trib).
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Charitable Trust-Delay in filing Form No. 9A-Appellate authorities have power to examine claim independently notwithstanding rejection of condonation application under section 119(2)(b)-Delay of about three months condoned-The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the exemption. [S.12 ,119(2)(b), Rule 17, Form No. 9A] The assessee, a charitable trust, filed… Read More ...
Pr. CIT v. Tata Power Company Ltd.
Bombay High Court: S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue receipt-Pre-commencement receipts-Income earned during trial runs and sale of scrap before installation of project-Receipts inextricably connected with setting up of project-Capital receipts-Not taxable. [S. 28(i), 80IA, 145 , 260A] The assessee, engaged in the business of generation and distribution of electricity, earned income from trial runs of… Read More ...