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
Jindal Exports and Imports Private Limited vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)
High Court of Delhi: Hon'ble High Court of Delhi quashed and set aside the notice issued under section 148A(b) and order passed under section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground that notice under section 148A(b) violates the provisions of section 282A as the name and designation of the concerned officer issuing the said notice finds no… Read More ...
Parth Developers vs. Pr. CIT (ITAT INDORE)
ITAT INDORE: Project Completion Method vs. Percentage Completion Method Scope of limited Scrutiny KEY Observations: Observations of the Hon. ITAT 1. The order of the AO was held as erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the ground that the AO has not examined applicability of the Percentage Completion Method. 2. It… Read More ...
Heart Foundation of India v. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 12AB : Procedure for fresh registration-Cancellation of registration-Withdrawal of registration cannot be done retrospectively Commissioner Central has no jurisdiction to cancel the registration–Cancellation of registration was quashed-Alternative contentions became academic hence not dealt with. [S. 11, 12A, 12AB(4), 13] The asseessee is a Charitable Trust which was set up vide trust deed dated April… Read More ...
Mrs. Usha Eswar v. ITO (Bombay High Court)
High Court of Bombay: Facts of the case In order to ensure finality and certainty as to taxability of income by way of dividends, interest and capital gains that Petitioner earned from sources in India, he made an application to Authority for Advance Ruling. AAR by applying provisions of India-UAE DTAA held that Petitioner was resident of UAE, Petitioner… Read More ...
PCIT v. Valley Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (Delhi High Court)
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 ...
Ramesh Kumar Patodia Vs Citibank N.A. (Calcutta High Court)
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 ...
PCIT v. Axis Bank Ltd (Gujarat High Court)
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 ...
Liquidator of the corporate debtor M/s Shirt Company vs. Recovery Officer
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 ...
PCIT v. Ashwin Purshotam Bajaj (Bombay High Court)
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 ...
PCIT v. Indravadan Jain, HUF (Bombay High Court)
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 ...