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
SHIVAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS VERSUS KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD (SUPREME COURT)
Supreme Court: Condonation of 3966 days delay: Courts ought not give a legitimizing effect to such callous attitude of State authorities or its instrumentalities, and should remain extra cautious, if the party seeking condonation of delay is a State-authority. They should not become surrogates for State laxity and lethargy. Constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the… Read More ...
Sunil Garg vs. DCIT, CC-II, Faridabad (ITAT Delhi)
Delhi ITAT: Case of alleged bogus purchase: All details in the form of books of accounts, copy invoices, GR, bilties etc. were filed before the Assessing Officer and the AO without pointing out any specific defect therein rejected the books of account u/s 145(3) and made the impugned addition of Rs. Rs.12,86,416/- by applying the GP rate… Read More ...
Anita Garg Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Delhi ITAT: Hon'ble ITAT held that Notice issued u/s 143(2) by the Assessing Officer on 24.09.2018 having been issued in violation of the binding CBDT Instruction No.F.No.225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017. The CBDT u/s 119 of the Act issued the above instructions prescribing mandatory revised formats for all scrutiny notices issued u/s 143(2) of the Act. These instructions are… Read More ...
Vaibhav Maruti Dombale v. Assistant Registrar, ITAT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-PF/ESI contribution-Subsequent decision of Supreme Court-Cannot be ground for rectification-Tribunal erred in recalling its order on the basis of subsequent ruling-Writ petition allowed. [S. 254(1), 143(1)(a), 36(1)(va), 43B, 260A, Art. 226, CPC O. 47 R.1] The assessee filed return for AY 2019–20. CPC disallowed employees’… Read More ...
DCIT v. JM Financial Services Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) (Third Member)
ITAT Mumbai: S. 73 : Loss in share trading-Speculation loss-Set-off-Not allowable against profit from F&O transactions-Arbitrage operations- Explanation to S.73 operates independently of S.43(5)-Speculative loss cannot be adjusted against F&O business income. [S. 28(i), 43(5)] The assessee, a stock broker, engaged in arbitrage operations, simultaneously purchased shares in the cash segment and sold them in the F&O… Read More ...
Provident Housing Ltd. v. UOI (Bombay High Court) (Goa Bench)
Bombay High Court (Goa Bench): Central Goods and Service tax Act , 2017 . S. 73 : Demands and recovery – Determination of tax - Joint Development Agreement – Real estate developer - Time of supply of service - Time of supply under Joint development agreement is governed by Notification 04/2018, i.e., on conveyance/allotment, not agreement date,-Any deposit obtained without… Read More ...
Anil Ramchandran Pillai v. NFAC (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 143(3) : Assessment- Appeal pending before CIT(A)-Writ- Alternate remedy-Writ petition not maintainable- Extraordinary jurisdiction-Not to be invoked when alternate statutory remedy is available- The Court directed CIT(A) to dispose of the appeals (both against assessment and penalty orders) within eight weeks. [S. 144B, 250, Art. 226] The assessee challenged the assessment order passed, demand… Read More ...
Shree Arihant Oil and General Mills v. UOI (Raj)(HC)
Rajasthan High Court : Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. S. 54 : Refund of tax-Input tax credit-Inverted duty structure- Notification No. 09/2022 dated 13-07-2022 applicable prospectively -Refund cannot be denied for period up to 18-07-2022-Circular restricting refund claims only if filed before 18-07-2022 held arbitrary and violative of Article 14-Refund application filed within limitation period of two… Read More ...
Sunidhi Securities & Finance Limited v. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Notice issued under section 148 with sanction of PCIT instead of JCIT-Survey- Invalid sanction-Assessment held to be null and void. [S. 133A, 143(3), 151(2), 147 , 148] The assessee, engaged in stock broking and financial services, had filed its return which was assessed under section 143(3). Subsequently, on… Read More ...
Ramesh Dnyandeo Dhuri v. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 56 : Income from other sources-Immovable property- Purchase consideration-DVO valuation-Difference of 7% within 10% safe harbor-Amendment by Finance Act, 2020 curative and retrospective- Addition deleted. [S. 50C, 56(2)(x)(b)(B)] The assessee, an individual, purchased a property for ₹60,00,000/-. The District Valuation Officer (DVO) valued the property at ₹64,84,000/-, resulting in a difference of ₹4,84,000/-. The… Read More ...