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
CIT(E) v. Tata Education and Development Trust (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Carry forward of deficit – Excess expenditure incurred by trust in earlier years – Set off against income of subsequent years – Permissible – Appeal of Revenue dismissed. [S. 11(1)(a), 11(1)(d), 260A.] The Revenue challenged the Tribunal’s order allowing the assessee–trust to carry forward the deficit… Read More ...
Man Truck & Bus India Pvt Ltd v. The Assessment Unit, ITD (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 270A : Penalty for under -reporting and misreporting of income - Transfer Pricing adjustment – Advanced Pricing Agreement – No order passed u/s. 92CD(3) on modified return – Virtual hearing mandatory under Faceless Penalty Scheme – Penalty order quashed and matter remanded to AO to grant virtual hearing and pass fresh speaking order within… Read More ...
Kedaara Capital Fund II LLP v. NFAC (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 143(3) Assessment – Disallowance of expenditure – Business income - Entries in the books of account is not conclusive- Alternative remedy – No deduction of expenses claimed either by assessee or unit holders – Addition made by AO wholly without jurisdiction – Writ petition maintainable – Assessment order quashed. [S. 10(23FBA), 28(i), 37(1), 115UB,… Read More ...
SHANTI DEVI (SINCE DECEASED)THROUGH LRS. GORAN VERSUS JAGAN DEVI (SUPREME COURT)
Supreme Court: Sale of an immovable property has to be for a price. Payment of price is essential, even if it is payable in the future. A sale deed executed without the payment of price is not a sale at all in the eyes of law. It is void. “54. “Sale” defined.—“Sale” is a transfer of ownership… Read More ...
SHIVAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS VERSUS KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD (SUPREME COURT)
Supreme Court: Condonation of 3966 days delay: Courts ought not give a legitimizing effect to such callous attitude of State authorities or its instrumentalities, and should remain extra cautious, if the party seeking condonation of delay is a State-authority. They should not become surrogates for State laxity and lethargy. Constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the… Read More ...
Sunil Garg vs. DCIT, CC-II, Faridabad (ITAT Delhi)
Delhi ITAT: Case of alleged bogus purchase: All details in the form of books of accounts, copy invoices, GR, bilties etc. were filed before the Assessing Officer and the AO without pointing out any specific defect therein rejected the books of account u/s 145(3) and made the impugned addition of Rs. Rs.12,86,416/- by applying the GP rate… Read More ...
Anita Garg Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Delhi ITAT: Hon'ble ITAT held that Notice issued u/s 143(2) by the Assessing Officer on 24.09.2018 having been issued in violation of the binding CBDT Instruction No.F.No.225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017. The CBDT u/s 119 of the Act issued the above instructions prescribing mandatory revised formats for all scrutiny notices issued u/s 143(2) of the Act. These instructions are… Read More ...
Vaibhav Maruti Dombale v. Assistant Registrar, ITAT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-PF/ESI contribution-Subsequent decision of Supreme Court-Cannot be ground for rectification-Tribunal erred in recalling its order on the basis of subsequent ruling-Writ petition allowed. [S. 254(1), 143(1)(a), 36(1)(va), 43B, 260A, Art. 226, CPC O. 47 R.1] The assessee filed return for AY 2019–20. CPC disallowed employees’… Read More ...
DCIT v. JM Financial Services Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) (Third Member)
ITAT Mumbai: S. 73 : Loss in share trading-Speculation loss-Set-off-Not allowable against profit from F&O transactions-Arbitrage operations- Explanation to S.73 operates independently of S.43(5)-Speculative loss cannot be adjusted against F&O business income. [S. 28(i), 43(5)] The assessee, a stock broker, engaged in arbitrage operations, simultaneously purchased shares in the cash segment and sold them in the F&O… Read More ...
Provident Housing Ltd. v. UOI (Bombay High Court) (Goa Bench)
Bombay High Court (Goa Bench): Central Goods and Service tax Act , 2017 . S. 73 : Demands and recovery – Determination of tax - Joint Development Agreement – Real estate developer - Time of supply of service - Time of supply under Joint development agreement is governed by Notification 04/2018, i.e., on conveyance/allotment, not agreement date,-Any deposit obtained without… Read More ...