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
Dy. CIT v. Hardcastle Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 153A : Assessment-Search-Abated assessment-No incriminating material was found-Alleged bogus purchases-Addition was deleted. [S. 69C, 132] Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Tribunal held that without any incriminating material found during search proceedings the addition cannot be made in respect of abated assessment. Followed, PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 212 /… Read More ...
Pradeep Jeyavelu v. ITO (ITAT Chennai)
Chennai Tribunal: S. 64 : Clubbing of income-Minor child-Capital gains-Sale of inherited property-Minor daughter’s share deposited in nationalized bank under Court order-Not includible in assessee’s hands. [S. 45, 54F, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, S.8(2)] The assessee sold property inherited from his deceased wife, being entitled along with his minor daughter to equal shares. The City… Read More ...
Natesan Ekambaram v. DCIT (ITAT Chennai)
Chennai Tribunal: S. 54F : Capital gains- Investment in a residential house–Advance received cannot be assessed as capital gains–The AO was directed to recompute the capital gains on actual consideration and also directed to allow the exemption under section 54F. [S. 45] The assessee, an individual, sold 30.35 cents of land out of 121 cents situated at… Read More ...
Steadview Capital Mauritius Limited v. CIT (International Taxation) (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT, Mumbai Bench: The Assessee was a SEBI-registered foreign portfolio investor. During the assessment proceedings, the AO called upon the assessee to explain why the long term capital loss should not be set off against the long term capital gain. The assessment was concluded after considering the reply of the assessee, after which notice u/s 263 was issued.… Read More ...
Ankit Gems Private Limited v. Circle 5(1)(1) (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT, Mumbai Bench: Delay in filing appeal by 427 days due to health issues of an employee who was entrusted with income-tax compliance matters, must be condoned, since assessee does not gain anything by causing the delay. The appeal must be decided on merits. On merits, it was held that an assessee cannot be required to prove a… Read More ...
VIJAY KRISHNASWAMI VERSUS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) (SUPREME COURT)
Supreme Court: Section 276C(1): Prosecution for Wilful attempt to evade tax cannot be initiated until the ITAT confirms levy of penalty (i) As per departmental circular dated 24.04.2008, Prosecution Manual, 2009, and CBDT’s circular dated 09.09.2019, prosecution under Section u/s 276C(1) shall be launched only after the confirmation of the order imposing penalty by the Income Tax… Read More ...
ABDUL HAMID NACHAR VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 SRINAGAR (ITAT Amritsar)
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: ABDUL HAMID NACHAR Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 Read More ...
Sky High Leasing Company Ltd. v. ACIT (Intl. Tax) (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Aircraft leasing-Multilateral Instrument (MLI)-Principal Purpose Test (PPT) cannot be applied in absence of specific Sec. 90(1) notification-Lease rentals not taxable as royalty-No Permanent establishment in India- Entitle to treaty benefit-DTAA-India Ireland. [S. 9(1)(i), 90(1), 143(3), 144C(13), 234A, 234B, 270A, Art. 5, 6, 7 , 8(1)… Read More ...
Dhanraj Govindram Kella v. ITO (Gujarat High Court)
Gujarat High Court : S. 147 : Reassessment-Validity of notices issued under old regime after 01.04.2021-Limitation and sanction under new regime- Considering the surviving time available-limitation under S.149 had expired or sanction under S.151 of appropriate authority was lacking, the reassessment notices were invalid. [S. 148, 148A, 149, 151, Art. 226] The assessee challenged notices issued u/s 148 (old… Read More ...
ITO v. Prakash Pandurang Patil (SUPREME COURT)
SUPREME COURT: S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice- Faceless regime – Jurisdiction of JAO – Notice after three years-Sanction of Specified Authority-Approval to be obtained from Principal Chief Commissioner-Approval from Principal Commissioner-Sanction is invalid-Order and consequent notice is invalid S. 148 - SLP of revenue was dismissed for failure to explain the… Read More ...