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
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 ...
Damani Research Foundation of Medical Sciences v. CIT (E) (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 12A : Registration-Trust or institution-Delay in filing audit report- Condonation of delay in filing Form 10B-Justice oriented approach should prevail over a pedantic one-Delay of 27 days condoned-Order of Commissioner (E) was set aside. [S. 11, 12, 119, Form No. 10B, Art. 226] The assessee, Damani Research Foundation of Medical Sciences, filed a writ… Read More ...
NEOSKY INDIA LIMITED versus MR. NAGENDRAN KANDASAMY (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court: Restrictive covenants in employment contracts which operate after cessation of employment are unenforceable (i) It is now well settled that post-service restrictive covenants in employment contracts, which operate after cessation of employment, are unenforceable under Indian law. (ii) The doctrine of restraint of trade, as embodied under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872,… Read More ...
Shree Cement Ltd. v. ACIT & Ors. (Rajasthan High Court)
Rajasthan High Court : S. 149 : Reassessment-Time barring-First proviso-Faceless regime-Jurisdiction of AO-Notice held barred by limitation and without jurisdiction. [S. 80IA, 133A, 143(3), 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 151A, Art. 226] The assessee, engaged in manufacture and sale of cement, filed ROI for AY 2017–18 claiming deduction u/s 80IA on profits from SWM, WTS and NIPU. The claim was examined… Read More ...
Babu Hasan Shaikh v. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 149 : Reassessment-Time barring-First proviso-Notice issued beyond six years-Fifth proviso not applicable-Notice quashed. [S. 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d) , 149(1)(b).] The assessee, a contractor, had sold immovable property in AY 2015–16 but did not file a return. Based on information from the Sub-Registrar, the AO issued a notice u/s 148A(b) on 24-03-2022, passed an… Read More ...
Mahesh Kumar v. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Delhi Tribunal : S. 147 : Reassessment-Long-term capital gains-Addition on issue forming reasons for reopening deleted by CIT(A)-Reassessment held invalid.[S. 68, 69, 10(38), Expl. 3 to S. 147, 148, 255(4)] The assessee, a Government employee, filed a return declaring salary income. Based on an Investigation Wing report, the AO reopened the assessment u/s 147 alleging receipt of ₹9.60… Read More ...
Karnataka Sangha v. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 250 : Appeal - Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure - Second order passed in same appeal-Faceless regime-Cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on Department. [ITAT Rules, 1963, R. 32A(2)] The assessee’s appeal for AY 2013–14 against additions made u/s 143(3) had been allowed by the CIT(A)-7 vide order dated 22.01.2018 in physical mode. Subsequently, after the introduction… Read More ...
Chitra Avdhesh Mehta (Smt.) v. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 68 : Cash credits-Long term capital gain-Penny stock-Sale of shares-Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd.-Kappac Pharma Ltd.-Acquired at Rs. 12 and sold at Rs. 720 per share-Abnormal price rise-General investigation report-Cash purchase and late dematerialization-No cogent evidence of genuine transaction – Addition upheld. [S. 10(38), 115BBE, 131, 133(6)] The assessee claimed exemption u/s 10(38) on LTCG… Read More ...
DCIT v. Max Hospitals and Allied Services Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 56 : Income from other sources-Share premium-Valuation under DCF method-AO cannot substitute or reject valuation done by a prescribed valuer without authority-Projection variations with actuals cannot be a ground to disregard valuation-Deletion of addition justified. [S. 56(2)(viib), 11UA(2)(b)] The assessee issued shares at a premium of ₹10 per share based on a Chartered Accountant’s… Read More ...
Neelam Ajit Phatarpekar vs ACIT (Bombay High Court)(Goa Bench)
Bombay High Court (Goa Bench): S. 254 r.w. R. 35: Though the assessee can be represented before the ITAT by an authorized representative, the order has to be served upon the assessee directly. A service of the order upon the authorized representative is not good service (i) The assessee is permitted to be represented in any proceedings before any Income… Read More ...