High Court of Delhi: Facts of the case Assessing Officer had levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of disallowance under section 43B. Assessee had filed original return of income on 30.11.2014 for A.Y. 2014-15. The original return of income was revised by the assessee on 01.09.2016. The revision in return of income… Read More ...

---

Calcutta High Court : *Ramesh Kumar Patodia Vs Citibank N.A[Calcutta High Court]* Date: July 25,2023 Sub:*Whether loan on credit card granted by Citibank is liable for IGST in terms of the IGST Act even when the interest on loan is exempted from IGST ?* The Division bench of Calcutta High Court in this case was dealing with an appeal… Read More ...

---

High Court of Gujarat: Facts of the case The assessee had claimed excess depreciation on land component of the properties. The Assessing Officer did not ascertain the same. However, before the Ld. CIT (Appeals), the assessee had suo motu made submission regarding this. In order to align its books of accounts with MCA notification, the assessee had itself disclosed… Read More ...

---

Hon'ble NCLT Mumbai: In this order Hon'ble NCLT held that PF/Gratuity due of the workers is third party asset belonging to poor worker and this asset need to excluded and to be paid in priority in resolution or liquidation without waiting for distribution under Section 53 of the IBC. Hon'ble Court held in operative part as under. "The… Read More ...

---

High Court of Bombay: Facts of the case During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer, after considering the depositions and affidavits filed before the Sales Tax Authority, came to a conclusion that the entities from whom the assessee had made purchases were only indulged in bogus accommodation entries without supply of goods. Accordingly, the purchases amounting to… Read More ...

---

BOMBAY HIGH COURT: S. 45 : Capital gains -Penny Stock-Cash credits –Accommodation entries - DMAT account and contract note showed details of share transaction- Assessing Officer had not proved said transaction as bogus, capital gain earned on said transaction cannot be treated as cash credits - Addition as cash credit was deleted- Order of Tribunal allowing the exemption… Read More ...

---

High Court of Delhi: Facts of the case During previous year relevant to A.Y. 2005-06, the assessee had taken loan from the bank. During the period spanning between A.Y. 2005-06 to A.Y. 2011-12, interest on loan paid by the assessee to the bank was allowed as deductible expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is only… Read More ...

---

Mumbai Tribunal : S. 2(14)(iii) : Capital asset-Agricultural land-Sale of agricultural land -Land revenue record shown as “Lagavadi Yogya Sherta“ (Cultivable land)-Vegetables and minor millets grown-Land situated in Raigad District-No condition is prescribed under the provision of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act that active agricultural activity should be there at the time of sale of the land-Only condition… Read More ...

---

High Court of Bombay: Facts The assessee had claimed exemption under section 10(38) in respect of long-term capital gain earned from sale of shares of a scrip. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the said scrip was a penny stock and the broker through whom the transaction by way of sale of shares was effected by… Read More ...

---

Gujarat High Court : Court explained ratio of Supreme Court decisions of Mak Data 2013(38) taxmann.com, 448. (SC) and Reliance Petro 2010(189) Taxman 322 (SC) while answering question on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) proposed by Revenue . Read More ...

---