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
DCIT v. Amit Mahendrakumar Mehta
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 54F : Capital gains-Investment in a residential house-Amalgamation of two adjacent flats-Assessee purchased one flat in his own name and another jointly in the names of his wife and son-Subsequently, two flats amalgamated into one composite residential unit under a registered supplementary agreement-Composite flat having a single entry and kitchen-Assessee having made substantial investment… Read More ...
DCIT v. Leela Lace Holdings Private Limited
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 143(1) : Assessment-Intimation-Scrutiny assessment- Adjustment made under section 143(1) prior to completion of scrutiny assessment under section 143(3)-Assessee did not file appeal against intimation under section 143(1) but challenged identical addition in appeal against assessment order under section 143(3)-Intimation under section 143(1) merges with subsequent scrutiny assessment order-CIT(A) justified in entertaining assessee's ground and… Read More ...
DCIT v. Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Capitalisation in books-Operational expenditure capitalised under CWIP in books but claimed as revenue expenditure for tax purposes-Assessee's telecom business already commenced and was operational-Expenditure incurred towards interconnect charges, employee cost, professional fees, call-centre expenses, power and fuel, repairs and maintenance, network costs, selling and distribution expenses, customer service, etc.-No specific capital… Read More ...
DCIT v. Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Royalty-Fees for technical services-Payments to foreign telecom operators-Voice termination, bandwidth and operation and maintenance services-Services rendered through sophisticated network and technology but assessee neither acquired equipment nor right to use any equipment/process-No technical knowledge or know-how made available-Payments not royalty or fees for technical services under applicable DTAAs-Recipients… Read More ...
Sarang Devshibhai Kapuriya v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Surat)
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT: A search u/s 132 was conducted on 23.01.2018 at the premises of Shri Pravin Jivrajbhai Tarpara, during which loose papers said to pertain to the assessee were seized. The searched person's own assessment u/s 153A was completed on 07.06.2021, but the satisfaction note for assuming jurisdiction over the assessee was recorded only on 23.11.2022 —… Read More ...
Hardinge House Co Op Hsg Society Ltd. v. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai: Capital gains, if any, arising out of the redevelopment transaction arising can be taxed in the hands of the individual members and not the cooperative housing society, even if the development agreement is entered into by the society. The development agreement is entered into by the society only in a representative capacity on behalf of… Read More ...
Harpal Singh Vs NFAC (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT DELHI BENCH : In this case the assessee has filed ROI declaring more than 15 lakhs Rs as his income. The case of the assessee has been reopened by an officer of the rank of ITO u/s 148. Thereafter the assessment has been completed by NFAC. Before ITAT Counsel for the assessee argued that as per the CBDT… Read More ...
Shri Mukul Rohatgi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT DELHI BENCH : In this case the CCIT step into the shoes of PCIT and invoked the provisions of section 263. On 26.02.2026, CBDT has promoted certain officers to the rank of CCIT.In that order it is mentioend that the officers can hold their previous post till the date they accept formal charge of new posting. In this… Read More ...
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 ...