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
PCIT v. Tata Industries Ltd (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Upfront fees and brokerage fees–Non -convertible debentures – Year of allowability –If the tax rate is uniform in two years then, the deduction whether claimed by the assessee in the year one or two is of no consequence to the revenue- The revenue expenditure is to be allowed in the year… Read More ...
PCIT v. Pravin U. Parmar (Jain) (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Order of Tribunal affirming the 7% of GP rate is affirmed-No substantial question of law. [S. 143(3), 260A] The ITAT has restricted the addition only to the extent of 7 % of GP in respect of alleged bogus purchases. On appeal by the Revenue the dismissing the appeal the Court… Read More ...
C.C. Dangi & Associates v. UOI (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice Principle of Natural Justice-Non-Application of Mind by Authorities-Role of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT)-Approval under Section 151-Strictures-Interplay Between CGST Act and Income Tax Act-Costs and Accountability of Tax Authorities-The High Court held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was invalid as… Read More ...
Amrish Manoj Dhupalia v. DCIT, Bhavya Manoj Dhupalia (Ms) v. DCIT, Mohan Manoj Dhupalia v. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Additional legal ground is admitted-Not specifying the charge-Levy of penalty is not valid-Substantial question of law is admitted before High Court-Penalty cannot be levied-The decision in Veena Estate P. Ltd. v. CIT (2024) 464 ITR 483 (Bom.)(HC) is distinguished. [S. 68, 69, 260A, 274] The AO levied the penalty u/s. 271(1)( c)… Read More ...
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS JUPITER CAPITAL PVT. LTD (SUPREME COURT)
Supreme Court: The reduction in share capital of the subsidiary company and subsequent proportionate reduction in the shareholding of the assessee would be squarely covered within the ambit of the expression “sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset” used in Section 2(47) the Income Tax Act, 1961 (a) Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which… Read More ...
SANJAY SHARMA VERSUS KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD (SUPREME COURT)
Supreme Court: Where the sale deed requires registration, ownership does not pass until the deed is registered, even if possession is transferred, and consideration is paid without such registration. Public auction cannot be set aside until there is any material irregularity and/or illegality committed in holding the auction or if such auction was vitiated by any fraud… Read More ...
Buckeye Trust v. PCIT (ITAT Bangalore)
Bangalore Tribunal : S. 56 : Income from other sources-Discretionary trust-Property-Interest from partnership firm and shares from unlisted company-Trust for the benefit of relatives of settler-Power with the trustees to add any persons or class of persons or charity as beneficiaries- Revision order on the ground that the Trust is not wholly benefit of beneficiaries-Amount of Rs. 669… Read More ...
DWARIKA PRASAD vs PRITHVI RAJ SINGH (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: It is well settled that Courts should not shut out cases on mere technicalities but rather afford opportunity to both sides and thrash out the matter on merits. Further, we cannot let the party suffer due to negligent or fault committed by their counsel. This principle has been enunciated by the Supreme court in the… Read More ...
Infantry Security and Facilities through, proprietor Tukaram M. Surayawanshi v. ITO (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Review-Statutory dues like the Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance -Payments were made before due date of filing of return-Allowed by the Tribunal-Corporation-Not deposited before due date of respective Acts-Delay of 92 days in filing miscellaneous application-Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application of the Revenue of… Read More ...
Rupesh Kantilal Savla v. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-On money -Six assessment years-Date of search-Date of receipt of seized material-Relevant assessment year -Search was conducted prior to the Finance Act , 2017-Search was conducted before the Finance Act, 2017, power to assess block period of ten years could not be attracted in case of a search… Read More ...