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
RAZORPAY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA (Karnataka High Court)
Karnataka High Court: If a payment gateway had no knowledge that the funds transferred to the merchant IDs of the accused were derived from criminal activity related to a scheduled offense and it did not knowingly assist the accused in concealing or transferring illicit proceeds as clean money, it cannot be said to have committed any offense under… Read More ...
PCIT v. Ziauddin A. Siddique (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 68 : Cash credits-Long term capital gains-Penny stock-Not subjected to any enquiry by SEBI-Sold through DMAT account-STT paid-Purchased at a rate as low as Rs.2.5/- to Rs. 3/- per share and they were sold at a rate extremely as high as Rs.125/- to Rs. 185/- per share-Order of Tribunal deleting the addition is affirmed.… Read More ...
Chirag Tejpraksh Dangi v. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 68 : Cash credits-Long term capital gains-Penny stock-Information from Investigation wing from Kolkata-Estimation of commission-Not subjected to any enquiry by SEBI -Statement of the assesse-Sold through DMAT account-Addition as cash credits and estimation of commission is deleted. [S. 10(38), 45, 69C, 131] The aassessee has sold the shares of , Radford Global Ltd. (Earlier… Read More ...
High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. & Ors (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: The Larger Bench of the Supreme Court was called upon to decide the following questions: - (a) Whether the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, can order automatic vacation of all interim orders of the High Courts of staying proceedings of Civil and Criminal cases… Read More ...
Ashok Chaganlal Thakkar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: If the agricultural land sold was a rural agricultural land as per Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and the agricultural land situated in rural area was not covered in the definition of capital asset, no capital gain is applicable. The provisions of Section 2(14)(iii) of the act does not require that agricultural operations should be… Read More ...
BHARTI CELLULAR LIMITED (NOW BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED) VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: The issue is whether Cellular mobile telephone service providers have a liability to deduct tax at source under Section 194-H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the amount which, as per the Revenue, is a commission payable to an agent by the assessees under the franchise/distributorship agreement between the assessees and the franchisees/distributors. As… Read More ...
S. Sagar Enterprise v. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT, Mumbai Bench: The ITAT held that in case an appellant pays fees for preferring the appeal before the ITAT which is in excess of the amounts prescribed, the Appellant was entitled to get a refund of the same. In this case, since the appeal to the ITAT was in respect of a penalty order, the fees of… Read More ...
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 versus RELX INC (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court: The assessee received subscription fee of Rs. 18,65,00,000 from Indian subscribers for the use of its legal database called "Lexis Nexis" which enables Indian subscribers to access judgments, articles, legislations and other research material relevant to the legal field. The income earned from subscription fee is in the nature of ‗business income‘ and in the… Read More ...
ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SABH INFRASTRUCTURE LTD (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: S. 147 Reopening Guidelines The Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP filed by the Department against the guidelines laid down by the Delhi High Court in matters of reopening of assessments "We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. Hence, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed."… Read More ...
Shyamkumar Madhavdas Chugh vs The ACIT, International Taxation Circle 1(2)(1), New Delhi (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi: First proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) categorically provides that where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, the stamp duty value on the date of the agreement maybe taken for the purpose of this provision. Admittedly, the agreement fixing… Read More ...