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
Amit Jatia v. ACIT & Smita Jatia (Smt.) v. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Addition for alleged “on-money” paid for purchase of jewellery solely on the basis of statement of third party and documents found in search of another person, without any incriminating material found in assessee’s search and without corroboration, is unsustainable-Assessee cannot be asked to prove a negative-Addition cannot be made merely on… Read More ...
Catholic Education Society v. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 263 : Commissioner - Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Charitable trust-Limited scrutiny-Payments to specified persons u/s. 13(3)-AO having made detailed enquiries and accepted explanation, PCIT cannot set aside assessment merely for “further verification” without himself recording how order is erroneous-Inadequate enquiry is not enough-PCIT must establish error by own enquiry-Revision quashed. [S. 12A, 13(3),… Read More ...
Swami Shanti Prakash Ashram Trust v. ACIT (E) (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-After the expiry of four years-Sanction u/s. 151 was issued by CIT(E) instead of joint Commissioner-Wrong authority-Effect of TOLA-Relying on Rajeev Bansal order reassessment notice and consequential order was quashed. [S. 147, 148, 151(2), TOLA, 2020, Art. 226] On writ against the reassessment order , allowing the petition… Read More ...
ITO v. Dahyalal Gagjibhai Jiwani (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT, Mumbai: Merely because the capital account balance in the immediately preceding year was not filled while filing the income tax return on account of a clerical error, the capital account balance reported for the year under consideration while filing the return of income cannot be automatically added as income of the year under consideration, especially when… Read More ...
Ramkrushna Sharda Sevashram vs. CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Rajkot)
ITAT Rajkot: Assessee applied for regular registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. But due to oversight, the trustees did not notice the receipt of mail related to proceedings under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii). Hence the assessee was not able to file response for the notice within specified time limit. Hence, the application for regular registration under section 12A… Read More ...
Shri Penninti Vivekananda Rao vs. ADIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
ITAT Hyderabad: Penalty u/s 270A(9) cannot be levied if income is offered under the wrong head of 'Capital Gains' instead of 'Other sources' (i) For levy of penalty under section 270A(9) of the Act, the case of the assessee must fall under one of the clauses (a) to (f) of the said sub-section. In the present case,… Read More ...
Global Waste Management Cell Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 254(2) : Rectification of mistake apparent on record – Subsequent judgment of Supreme Court cannot be ground for recall/rectification – Tribunal having followed binding jurisdictional High Court judgment at the time of passing original order – No mistake apparent from record – Miscellaneous Application dismissed. [S. 36(1)(va), 43B] The Assessing Officer, while processing the… Read More ...
Shalina Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 226 : Collection and mode of recovery - Recovery of tax –Pendency of appeal before CIT( A) - Stay of demand – Non-speaking order– Application of mind – Principles of natural justice - Allowing the writ, the Court held that the order rejecting the assessee’s stay application was a non-speaking order passed without considering… Read More ...
Siemens Limited v. DCIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 154 : Rectification – Mandatory requirement of DIN – Back-dated rectification order – Limitation – Violation of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 – Order deemed never issued – Writ maintainable despite alternate remedy. [S. 119, 154(3), 154(7), 250, 292B, Art. 226] The assessee challenged a rectification order purportedly dated 29-03-2024 passed u/s 154 giving effect… Read More ...
Shree Raj Crystal Co-op. Housing Society Ltd Vs Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru (ITAT Mumbai)
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI: The assessee has earned interest income to the tune of Rs. 4,85,800/- on FDR maintained with Saraswati Co-operative Bank and claimed the same as deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act which was disallowed by the Authorities below by their respective orders. Admittedly identical issue has already been decided in favour of the then Assessees by… Read More ...