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
Caishen Enterprise LLP v. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Faceless assessment-Notice is issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer-On writ the Court set aside the notice issued under Section 148 and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom- Honourable Court has granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the order simply by moving a Praecipe before this… Read More ...
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs ACIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: The Assessing Officer has to give details in the recorded reasons as to which fact or material was not disclosed by the Petitioner that led to its income escaping assessment. A mere bald assertion in the reasons that there was a failure on the part of the Petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material… Read More ...
Carona Limited v. DCIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Disallowance of deduction- Method of accounting-Plausible interpretation of law-No malafide intention-Disclosed all relevant facts and no false statement-Penalty is deleted. [S. 43B, 145, 260A] The assessee claimed a deduction for the unpaid ad-hoc bonus. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction under Section 43B and imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing… Read More ...
Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue-Sales Tax Incentive- Purpose test-Incentive for setting up industrial unit in backward area- Sales tax incentive under 1979 and 1983 Schemes is capital receipt, not chargeable to tax. [S. 28(i), 43B, 1979 Scheme, 1983 Scheme] For the assessment year 1987–88, Bajaj Auto Ltd. set up a new industrial… Read More ...
Kotak Family Foundation v. CIT(E) (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 11 : Income from property held for charitable or religious purposes -Delay in e-verification of audit report-Audit report in Form 10B filed in time- E-verification delayed due to COVID-Delay is not intentional -Delay of 101 or 254 days within permissible limit-Rejection of condonation against principles of substantive justice-Procedural lapses should not override substantive justice,… Read More ...
SANDEEP GARG versus SALES TAX OFFICER (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court: The Department sends automated e-mails and SMSs whenever anything is uploaded on the portal. If the taxpayer is not diligent in checking the portal & no reply to the Show Cause Notice is filed, the department cannot be blamed (i) A perusal of the screenshot shows that the reminder notice was clearly visible on 09th… Read More ...
Darshan Singh Parmar v. UOI (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax, Act, 2017 S. 73 : Demands and Recovery-Tax evasion- Reward for providing information related to tax evasions-Reward determined but not paid by the government-Reward scheme should be operated fairly and avoid frivolous objections-Government directed to pay the reward with interest in case of delay-Circular GR No.STA-2004/CR-103 Taxation-2 dt. 05-06-2007. [S.… Read More ...
Skytech Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax Nodal (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax (MGST Act), 2017 S: 83 : Provisional attachment to protect revenue in certain cases-Cash credit accounts-Not a property of the account holder-Cannot be attached provisionally u/s 83- Directed to withdraw the attachment within 24 hours. [S.83(1), Art. 226] The petitioner’s cash credit account with ICICI Bank was provisionally attached under… Read More ...
PCIT v. Hans Chemicals Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 268A : Appeal-Instructions-Circulars-Monetary limits-2 crores-Applicability of revised CBDT monetary limits (Circular No 3 of 2018 dt. 11-7-2028 (2018) 405 ITR 29 (St), Circular 9 of 2024 , dated 17th September, 2024, (2024) 468 ITR 1 (St.)-Exceptions Apply Prospectively -Pending Appeals Covered by revised threshold-Appeal of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 260A] In this case, the… Read More ...
Gokulakrishna v. DCIT (ITAT Chennai)
Chennai Tribunal: S. 45(4) : Capital gains-Distribution of capital asset-Dissolution of firm - Introduction of new partner-Amount received by existing partner for sacrificing his profit-sharing ratio-Realignment of share ratio - No transfer of asset - No capital gain taxable on relinquishment of share ratio-Post amendment, 2021, Finance Act, 2021. [S. 2(14), 2(47), 9B, 45] The assessee is… Read More ...