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
Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
Bombay High Court: S. 80IA : Industrial undertakings-Enterprises engaged in infrastructure development-Derived-Interest income on fixed deposits kept for contractual obligations and Interest on wrongful deduction of TDS refund-Eligible for deduction as profits derived from infrastructure facility. [S. 56 , 80IA(ii), 254(2), 260A, Art. 226] The assessee, Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Ltd., a joint venture between APM Terminals Mauritius… Read More ...
PCIT (Central)-1 v. Hiranandani Builders
Bombay High Court: S. 80IA : Industrial undertakings-Enterprises engaged in infrastructure development-Income tax refund-Interest on excess payment of tax-Income derived from eligible business-Eligible for deduction- No substantial question of law. [S. 260A] The assessee, a developer of IT Parks and SEZ, claimed deduction u/s 80-IA not only on lease rental income (undisputedly eligible) but also on interest received… Read More ...
Rahul M. Dalmia v. ITO
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Addition made on estimated basis of 25% of purchases deleted-Purchases supported by bills, stock register, delivery challans and bank payments-Supplier appeared before AO and confirmed sales-ITAT held that once purchases are corroborated by evidence and vendor’s statement, no addition could be sustained-Bombay High Court ruling in PCIT v. Kanak Impex… Read More ...
Rajesh Shivji Shah v. ITO
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 69C : Unexplained Expenditure – Bogus Purchases – Addition unsustainable when purchases supported by documents, payments through banking channel, sales accepted, and no cross-examination allowed – VAT authorities accepted purchases-Addition was deleted -Bombay High Court ruling in PCIT v. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd [2025] 474 ITR 175 / 172 taxmann.com 283 (Bom)(HC) is distinguished.[S.133(6),… Read More ...
Quality Heightcon Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure -Bogus Purchases - Only profit element to be taxed- Addition restricted to 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases- Bombay High Court ruling in PCIT v. Kanak Impex(India) Ltd [2025] 474 ITR 175 / 172 taxmann.com 283 (Bom)(HC) is distinguished. [ S. 133(6), 147 , 148 ] The assessee, engaged in construction,… Read More ...
ACIT v. Dhiraj Parbat Gothi
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure - Bogus purchases - Addition restricted to 4% – Tribunal held that since purchases were supported by invoices, bank statements, stock register, and no defect was found in books or sales, only profit element could be added. High Court decision in PCIT v. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd. [2025] 474 ITR… Read More ...
ANKUR RICE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, ETAWAH VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2)(5) ETAWAH (ITAT Agra)
HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ,AGRA BENCH SMC .AGRA : ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS REGARDING SALARY OF RS,348918 PAYABLE AS ON 31-03-2016 TO BE GENUINE BUSINESS LIABILITY ARISING IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS, WHICH WAS PAID IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR THEN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56 OF THE ACT PER SE COULD NOT MADE APPLICABLE TO THE IMPUGNED… Read More ...
Classic Legends Pvt. Ltd. v. Assessment Unit (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 144C : Dispute Resolution Panel-Draft Assessment Order-Eligible assessee-Not an eligible assessee if TPO makes no variation- Assessment order without jurisdiction-Quashed assessment order. [S. 92CA(3), 144C(15)(b), Art. 226] The assessee challenged the Draft Assessment Order under section 144C and the consequential final assessment and penalty notices. The Assessing Officer had referred the case to the… Read More ...
PCIT v. Colo Colour Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Bogus purchases-Addition on estimation-Rejection of books oaf account-Penalty not leviable. [S. 145(3), 147, 148, 260A] The assessee, engaged in operating a photo studio, had filed return for AY 2011–12. In reassessment, the AO, relying on Sales Tax Department information, treated purchases from alleged hawala parties as non-genuine, rejected books u/s 145(3), and… Read More ...
ITAT Bar Association & Anr. v. Secretary of I&B & Ors. (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 255 : Income tax Appellate Tribunal–Additional premises for the functioning of Court Rooms–Interim order of the High Court dated 28th June, 2000 allotting the premises to ITAT for the functioning of additional five court rooms is affirmed [S. 254, Art. 226] The ITAT Bar Association Mumbai has filed a PIL before the Bombay High… Read More ...