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
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 VERSUS V-CON INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD (SUPREME COURT)
Supreme Court: S. 263 Revision: There is a distinction between the failure or absence of investigation and a wrong decision/ conclusion. If the AO has reached a wrong decision/conclusion, the CIT cannot remand the case to the AO but must correct it with a decision on merits. A remand is justified only if the AO has made… Read More ...
DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE VERSUS RAJ KUMAR ARORA (SUPREME COURT)
Supreme Court: If a judgement is overruled, the overruling judgement operates retrospectively. Any transaction would then be covered by the law declared by the overruling decision. If the Court desires that the overruling judgement should operate prospectively, it must be expressly stated (i) A judicial decision acts retrospectively. It is not the function of the court to… Read More ...
Shrinivasa Realcon Private Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Anti Evasion Branch, CGST (Bombay High Court) (Nagpur Bench)
Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench): GST is not applicable to the transfer of development rights (TDR) or Floor Space Index (FSI) as part of a development agreement (i) Entry 5B of the Notification dated 28.6.2017 relates to services which can be said to be supplied by any person by way of transfer of development rights or Floor Space Index (FSI)… Read More ...
The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution VERSUS B. Gunashekar (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: Directions regarding reporting and probe of cash transactions in excess of ₹2 Lakh Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act, was introduced to curb black money by digitalising the transactions above Rs.2,00,000/- and contemplating equal amount of penalty under Section 271DA of the Act. When a suit is filed claiming Rs.75,00,000/- paid by cash, not… Read More ...
Utility Supply Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) (ITA No. 3585/Mum/2024) dated 03.04.2025
ITAT Mumbai: 1. The approval taken u/s 153D of the Act before passing order u/s 153A of the Act cannot be taken in a mechanical manner. The approval must reflect materials/findings/reasoning to show that the higher authority has applied his mind before granting approval. AO is duty bound to submit draft assessment order well in advance for… Read More ...
Cryogas Equipment Private Limited versus Inox India Limited (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: Framework for distinguishing between works protected under the Copyright Act, 1957, and designs eligible for protection under the Designs Act, 2000 (i) The expression ‘artistic work’ under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act has a very wide connotation and may also include abstract work(s) comprising a few lines or curves arbitrarily drawn, which could be… Read More ...
PCIT vs. MANOJ GANESHLAL BHATIA (Gujarat High Court)
Gujarat High Corurt: The assessee filed a return declaring income of ₹1.27 crore for AY 2015–16. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order under Section 143(3), making three key additions: ₹3.97 crore: Difference in profit from Futures & Options (F&O) transactions. CIT(A) deleted ₹3.97 Cr, upheld ₹60,088. ₹5.60 crore: Increase in capital, considered unexplained. CIT(A) deleted the entire… Read More ...
UJALA DYEING AND PRINTING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court)
Gujarat High Corurt: The petitioner filed its income tax return on 24/09/2018, claiming a refund of ₹38,08,115 and inadvertently disclosed the disallowances of expenditures in the wrong colums. The Centralized Processing Center (CPC) issued an intimation on 03/09/2019, pointing out a mismatch for not reportig certain disallowances as per the Audit Report. Such Intimation was received by the… Read More ...
ITO v. SDN Company (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 56 : Income from other sources-Transactions between partners and firm-Will-Family settlement-Brothers and sisters-Changes in the profit sharing ratio-Colourable device-Transfer-Capital contribution-The provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act is not applicable-Order of CIT(A) deleting the addition is affirmed. [S. 2(31)(iv), 2(47), 14, 56(2)(viia), R. 11UA] The shares of UFIPL have been introduced as capital contribution… Read More ...
ANNAYA KOCHA SHETTY VERSUS LAXMIBAI NARAYAN SATOSE (SUPREME COURT)
Supreme Court: Interpretation of contracts & documents: Whether an agreement styled as one for conducting the business of another person can be interpreted as a leave and license agreement for purposes of the Bombay Rent Act? The guide to the construction of deeds and tools adopted can broadly be summarised as follows: (i) The contract is first… Read More ...