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
Satyam Computer Services Limited v. CBDT (Telangana High Court)
Telangana High Court : S. 119 : Central Board of Direct Taxes- Powers of CBDT – Genuine hardship – Reassessment – Fictitious income – CBDT’s refusal to allow re computation despite established fraud – Order quashed and set aside. [S. 10A, 119(2)(b), 139(5), 147, 154,245, 264, 281B, Art. 14, 19(1)(g), 226, 265, 300A] The petitioner, Satyam Computer Services Limited… Read More ...
Supreme Construction & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 73 : Determination of tax not paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised for any reason other than fraud or any wilful -misstatement or suppression of facts - Demands and recovery - Mere claim of demand being without jurisdiction does not warrant waiver of statutory pre-deposit requirement for filing… Read More ...
Abdul Saeed Issak v. INT Tax Ward (3) (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 151 : Reassessment - Sanction for issue of notice –Additional ground admitted - Approval from incorrect authority – Notice issued without valid sanction from specified authority – Notice is quashed and set aside. [S. 144C(13), 147, 148A(d), 151(ii), Art. 226] The assessee, a non-resident Indian, filed an e-return of income for AY 2017-18 on… Read More ...
Mahesh Mathuradas Ganatra v. CPC (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Stay of demand-Refund adjustment-Delay in disposal of stay application-Strictures-The delay of six years in deciding the stay application is unjustified and that respondents cannot take advantage of their own delay-The Court directed the revenue to refund the amount within four weeks and suggested that the petitioner apply for an early hearing… Read More ...
Lupin Limited v. Dy CIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Change of opinion-No fresh tangible material-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed. [S. 35AC, 80G, 143(3), 148, Art. 226] The petitioner filed its return of income for AY 2016-17 on 26 November 2016, declaring Rs. 26,36,01,64,390 as total income. The return was selected for scrutiny, and the… Read More ...
Leena Power Tech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Limitation-COVID extension not applicable-Rectification application is filed beyond period of six months-Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone delay-Writ petition is dismissed. [Art. 226] The ITAT dismissed the petitioner’s appeal on 21 September 2021, and the order was communicated on 17 November 2021. Under… Read More ...
Sanjay Patel v. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Income from other sources-Failure to respond to notice-Audit objection after amendment-Factual disputes cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings when an alternative remedy is available-Writ petition is dismissed with liberty to file an appeal. [S. 57, 142(1), 143(3), 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226] The petitioner, an… Read More ...
Ramchandra Udaysingh Jadhavrao vs ACIT, Circle-3, Pune (ITAT Pune)
ITAT Pune: Key Facts: The assessee, Ramchandra Udaysingh Jadhavrao, is a proprietor of M/s. JKG Developers, engaged in construction and land development. He filed his return of income for AY 2016-17 on 31.01.2017, declaring a total income of ₹12.37 crores. A survey under Section 133A was conducted at his business premises on 14.09.2016. During the survey, he… Read More ...
ACIT v. Neelam Omprakash Singh (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Development agreement-Cost Inflation Index-Year of taxability-Tribunal’s common order applied to all co-owners- Miscellaneous application of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 45, 48, 254(1)] The assessee filed a return for AY .2008-09, declaring long term capital gains in respect of development rights. The Assessing Officer assessed the… Read More ...
Sejal Jewellery & Others v. UOI (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 148 : Reassessment-Income of any other person-Search-Search material pertains to third party-Notice of reassessment under Section 148 is held without jurisdiction-Section 153C and not section 148 is to be resorted to- Notice of reassessment is quashed and set aside. [S. 132, 147, 151(1), 153A, 153C, Art. 226] The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in… Read More ...