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
Dedhia Music Foundation v. CIT(E) (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 12AB : Procedure for fresh registration-The object of the company is to promote Indian heritage art such as Indian Classical music, organize regular concerts and performances by renowned and emerging Indian etc-Renewal of registration cannot be denied on the ground that the objects of the trust may contain clauses, which may enable a charitable… Read More ...
A RAJENDRA VERSUS GONUGUNTA MADHUSUDHAN RAO (SUPREME COURT)
Supreme Court: If a judgment is pronounced in open Court, the period of limitation starts running from that very day. If an application for certified copy is filed, the period during which the certified copy was under preparation has to be excluded as per Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act (i) The incident which triggers limitation to… Read More ...
Anushaka Sanjay Shah (Ms) v. ITO (IT) (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 90 : Double taxation relief-Capital gains-Mutual fund Units- Singapore resident-Sale/redemption of mutual fund units would be covered Article 13 of DTAA-Not taxable in India-DTAA-India-Singapore. [Art. 13(4), 13(5)] Assessee is a non-resident Indian and is a resident of Singapore . The assessee has shown exemption in respect of capital gains earned on sale of Mutual… Read More ...
The Maharashtra Mantralaya Shaskiy Karmachari Co-op Credit Society Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward 25(2)(1) (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai: Assesses being co-op credit society engaged in providing credit facility exclusive to its members is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i), on its total income including the interest from commercial banks. Read More ...
N.P. SASEENDRAN VERSUS N.P. PONNAMMA (SUPREME COURT)
Supreme Court: What is the difference between a Gift, Settlement and Will? The nomenclature of the instrument is immaterial and the nature of the document is to be derived from its contents. There must be a transfer of interest in praesenti for a gift or a settlement and in case of postponement of such transfer until the… Read More ...
CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS VERSUS ABERDARE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: (i) The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs must re-examine the provisions/timelines fixed for correcting the bonafide errors. Time lines should be realist as lapse/defect invariably is realized when input tax credit is denied to the purchaser when benefit of tax paid is denied. Purchaser is not at fault, having paid the tax amount.… Read More ...
THE UNION OF INDIA VERSUS BRIJ SYSTEMS LTD (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: (i) It appears that on account of mistakes or errors getting noticed on the input tax credit, and the input tax credit being subsequently denied to the purchaser, the Revenue has been taking the stand that rectification is not possible after expiry of the period prescribed under Sections 37(3) and 39(9) of the Central Goods… Read More ...
Anil Dattaram Pitale v. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 56 : Income from other sources-Re development-Alternative accommodation of New flat of bigger size allotted from the builder in extinguishment of the old flat as per the redevelopment agreement -Cannot be assessed under section 56(2)(x) of the Act-A the most the said transaction may attract capital gains in which case the assessee should be… Read More ...
Vaibhav Goel & Anr versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: (i) In view of the declaration of law made in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd (2021) 9 SCC 657, all the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, if not a part of the Resolution Plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings could be continued… Read More ...
Aarti Sudarshan Soni v. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 69 : Unexplained Investments-Alleged on money-Purchase of flat-Survey statement-Opportunity of cross examination is not provided- Merely on the basis of statement of the accountant of the builder no addition can be made. [S. 132(4), 133A] The assesseee purchased the flat from shah Hosecon Pvt. Ltd. In the course of survey in the premises of… Read More ...