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
Chitra Avdhesh Mehta (Smt.) v. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 68 : Cash credits-Long term capital gain-Penny stock-Sale of shares-Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd.-Kappac Pharma Ltd.-Acquired at Rs. 12 and sold at Rs. 720 per share-Abnormal price rise-General investigation report-Cash purchase and late dematerialization-No cogent evidence of genuine transaction – Addition upheld. [S. 10(38), 115BBE, 131, 133(6)] The assessee claimed exemption u/s 10(38) on LTCG… Read More ...
DCIT v. Max Hospitals and Allied Services Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 56 : Income from other sources-Share premium-Valuation under DCF method-AO cannot substitute or reject valuation done by a prescribed valuer without authority-Projection variations with actuals cannot be a ground to disregard valuation-Deletion of addition justified. [S. 56(2)(viib), 11UA(2)(b)] The assessee issued shares at a premium of ₹10 per share based on a Chartered Accountant’s… Read More ...
Neelam Ajit Phatarpekar vs ACIT (Bombay High Court)(Goa Bench)
Bombay High Court (Goa Bench): S. 254 r.w. R. 35: Though the assessee can be represented before the ITAT by an authorized representative, the order has to be served upon the assessee directly. A service of the order upon the authorized representative is not good service (i) The assessee is permitted to be represented in any proceedings before any Income… Read More ...
J. Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. v. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Salary paid to staff/ spouse and professional fees-Disallowance is restricted to 30%.[S. 40(a)(ia),143(3)] The AO disallowed the salary paid to spouse of the employees. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowances to 30 % of gross receipts. The Tribunal afformed the order of the CIT(A). (ITA Nos. 4147 to 4153 & 4585 to… Read More ...
Western Arch Developers v. Pr. CIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes-Profits and gains from housing projects-Condonation of delay-Genuine hardship-Delay in filing of return of income-Genuine hardship-Claim for deduction under section 80IBA-Delay of 45 days due to illness of managing partner- Rejection not justified. [S. 80IBA, 119(2(b), 139, Art. 226] The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in construction, received a… Read More ...
Skyway Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd v. DCIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-ITAT has not dealt with the issue of Document Identification Number (DIN)-Failure to decide Cross objection-Search-Assessment order without-Not uploaded on portal before limitation-Violation of CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 dt. 14th August, 2019-Bogus purchases-Un secured loan-Assessment was not uploaded on Portal before the expiry of limitation-Screen shots-Miscellaneous application was rejected… Read More ...
Manish Kumar vs Directorate General, Goods & Service Tax Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Ludhiana (P&H High Court)
P&H High Court: GST Act: Dept is carrying out abrupt arrests driven by some inexplicable urgency rather than necessity. However, it does not pursue the trial with the same urgency. The slow-paced trials is symptomatic of a systemic problem (i) The GST regime was implemented on 01.07.2017 and interestingly, since its commencement, only a solitary conviction has been… Read More ...
PCIT vs. ZULU MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED (Calcutta High Court)
Calcutta High Court: Bogus Capital Gains from Penny Stocks: Surrounding circumstances have to be taken note of & the test of human probabilities have to be applied. Though the shares were sold in the normal course of business through shares brokers in Demat Form in stock exchanges & payment were made through banking channel, the capital gains can… Read More ...
Puneet Batra vs UOI (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court: An Advocate cannot be subjected to harassment by a search and seizure conducted at his office unless and until there is some material for the GST Department to show that the advocate himself is not merely representing his client but is also personally involved in the alleged illegality. For the said purpose, some prima facie… Read More ...
Krishnagopal B. Nangpal v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: Sale proceeds of one residential house, used for purchase of multiple residential houses qualifies for exemption under Section 54(1) of the Income-tax Act prior to its amendment by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 (i) The amendment brought in by Finance (No.2) Act 2014 to section 54 makes the position clear that after the amendment, the… Read More ...