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
Vinay Tarachand Chawla vs PCIT [ITA 3371/Mum/2025] (ITAT Mumbai)
Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT: Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT quashed order passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) by holding that the AO has made detailed inquiry before passing the order which has been raised by the PCIT in proceeding initiated u/s 263 of the Act. Hon’ble ITAT also allowed following claims on merits: (i) Loss on relinquishment… Read More ...
Arham Star v. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai: Bogus purchases - Ratio of judgement of Mohd. Haji Adam (Bom. HC) followed and Kanak Impex India Ltd. (Bom. HC) distinguished. Read More ...
Deepak Jain v. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
Delhi Tribunal : Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) Act, 2015 . S. 10(3) :Assessment – Charge of tax Undisclosed foreign asset – Asset ceased before 1.7.2015 – Not taxable-Penalty – Non-disclosure of asset – Ceased before AY 2012–13-Penalty not leviable-Doctrine of election/approbate and reprobate-Once proceedings under the IT Act are consciously chosen, the Revenue cannot subsequently… Read More ...
ACIT v. Eagle Films (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 45 : Capital Gains – Sale of Film Rights-Transfer of bundle of rights in 31 cinematographic films held to be transfer of capital assets- Consideration received taxable as capital gains and not as business income. [S. 2(11)(B), 2(14) 28(i), 28(va), 55(2)(a)] The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in film production since 1953, had produced… Read More ...
Abdul Mannan v. ITO (CALCUTTA HIGH COURT)
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT : S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Tribunal remanding matter with cost-Cost of ₹50,000 imposed on small trader held to be harsh and unjustified - Order of Tribunal set aside. [S. 250(6), 254(2B), 260A] The assessee, a small trader of glass articles, filed appeal against the order of the ITAT, Kolkata `SMC’ Bench, for AY 2017–18. The ITAT… Read More ...
M/S. SHIV STEELS VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM (SUPREME COURT)
Supreme Court: Tax cannot be imposed by inference or by trying to probe into the intention of the legislature and by considering what was the substance of the matter (i) The assessments undertaken for the three years were already held to be invalid because of being time barred, in view of Section 19 of the Assam General… Read More ...
ITO v. Pradeep Kumar Agarwal (ITAT Jaipur)
Jaipur Tribunal : S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure -Bogus Purchases-Hawala- Accommodation entries - Purchases duly supported by bills, cheque payments, confirmations, and accepted sales cannot be treated as bogus. Disallowance of entire purchases unjustified-Disallowance 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.… Read More ...
Palmon Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure -Bogus Purchases – Estimation of profit element – When purchases were supported by bills, bank payments and sales not disputed, 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)… Read More ...
Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (Bombay High Court)
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)
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 ...