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
ACIT v. Dhiraj Parbat Gothi (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Information from Investigation Wing-Addition restricted to 4% justified-Additional ground of Revenue to disallowance at 100% of alleged bogus purchases is rejected-No justification for 100% disallowance in absence of suppression of sales-Books of account not rejected-PCIT v. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd [2025] 172 taxmann.com 283 / 474 ITR 175 (Bom)(HC) is… Read More ...
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 ...