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
Kanak Impex (India) Ltd (Supreme Court)
SUPREME COURT: S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Information from Sales-Tax Department-Failure to prove genuineness of purchases-Order of the Appellate Tribunal holding that only profit estimation at 12. 5% was set aside-Order of the Assessing Officer confirming the addition of entire purchases a bogus under section 69C of the Income-tax Act was affirmed by High Court - SLP… Read More ...
CIT (E) v. Hyderabad Cricket Association (Supreme Court)
SUPREME COURT: S. 261 : Appeal - Supreme Court -Limitation : Condonation of delay- Strictures-Departmental delay of 524 days-Unsatisfactory explanation-Internal procedural delays such as multiple scrutiny reports, repeated vetting and lack of timely direction for filing SLP held to be avoidable-However, considering that other matters on similar issue were already entertained, Supreme Court condoned the delay as… Read More ...
Awadhnarayan Bhagwanta Singh v. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 56 : Income from Other Sources-Stamp duty valuation-Difference between agreement date and registration date–Allotment letter treated as “agreement”–Part consideration paid through banking channel before agreement–Stamp duty valuation to be adopted as on date of allotment–Addition deleted. [S. 50C ,56(2)(vii)(b).] Where the assessee purchased a flat for ₹1,10,00,000 and the AO made an addition of… Read More ...
Snehdham Trust & Ors v. ACIT (Gujarat High Court)
Gujarat High Court: S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Faceless regime-Notice issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after 01.04.2022-Held to be valid-The Court clarified that paragraph 3 of the Scheme requires only automated allocation, not faceless issuance-Writ petitions dismissed-Not followed Hexaware Technologies Limited v. ACIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225/ 464 ITR 430 / 338… Read More ...
ITO v. Romil Diam (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus Purchases- Accommodation entries Assessing Officer disallowed 100% purchases as bogus purchases-CIT( A) restricted the disallowance to 8% of purchases against 100% of disallowed by the Assessing Officer-on appeal by Revenue the Tribunal affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer and confirmed 100% of bogus purchases. [S. 37, 68, 143(3), 147,… Read More ...
MS J M JAIN PROP SH JEETMAL CHORARIA versus UNION OF INDIA (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court: The GST Department and even other Departments, including the IT Department ought to be careful while citing judicial precedents, specially if the same has been produced or accessed through Artificial Intelligence software, as there is a clear possibility of the citations themselves being fake Judicial precedents clearly demonstrate the risk of Artificial Intelligence hallucinating, by… Read More ...
State Bank of India v. Pallabh Bhowmick (Gauhati High Court)
Gauhati High Court: Constitution of India Art. 226 : Cyber fraud–Unauthorized electronic banking transactions – Zero liability of customer (RBI Circular) – Bank’s duty of prompt action – Fraudulent siphoning of ₹94,204.80 on downloading app at behest of fraudster impersonating brand customer-care – Customer informed bank within one working day – No proof of customer sharing OTP/MPIN –… Read More ...
Suresh Chandra Singh Negi & Ors v. Bank of Baroda (Allahabad High Court)
Allahabad High Court : Constitution of India. Art. 226 : Cyber-Fraud Claim – Customer Liability under RBI Circular (RBI Circular dated 06-07-2017 – Customer Protection – Limiting Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions) - RBI Circular protects customers only in cases of third-party breach or where no negligence is attributable to the account holder; it cannot be… Read More ...
Shabbir Taheri v. ITO (Mum ITAT) dated 15.10.2025 (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT-Mumbai in ITA No. 1574/Mum/2025: ITAT Mumbai vide 2 separate orders passed by both members quashes reassessment proceedings for AY 2018-19 initiated in April,2022 on the ground that the sanction for issuing notices under sections 148A(d) and 148 was wrongly obtained from the PCIT instead of the PCCIT, as required under Section 151(ii) once more than three years had elapsed.… Read More ...
Moraj Group Hospitalities Inc. vs. Central Circle 5(2), (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT, D Bench, : The assessee, Moraj Group Hospitalities Inc., appealed against the penalty of ₹24,72,000 levied under section 271(1)(c) for AY 2015-16, which arose from an addition of ₹80 lakhs made in reassessment relating to a loan from Dhanvi Corporation. The assessee argued that the penalty order and notices were invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to specify… Read More ...