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
Balaram Chainrai vs International Taxation, Ward (ITAT Mumbai) [ITA No. 1074/Mum/2025]
Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT: Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT held that addition of alleged penny stock shall not be made in case of a regular investor on the basis of information from investigation wing. Facts: Assessee’s case has been reopened on the basis of information received from investigation wing that allegedly the assessee has done trading in penny stocks namely M/s.… Read More ...
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED VERSUS SHREE NIWAS RAMGOPAL (SUPREME COURT)
Supreme Court: Section 42 of the Partnership Act, 1932: In the case of a firm with more than two partners, if one of the partners dies or retires, there is change in the constitution of the firm but there is no dissolution (i) It is settled in law by virtue of Section 42 of the Partnership Act,… Read More ...
ACIT v. Dhiraj Parbat Gothi (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Information from Investigation Wing-Addition restricted to 4% justified-Additional ground of Revenue to disallowance at 100% of alleged bogus purchases is rejected-No justification for 100% disallowance in absence of suppression of sales-Books of account not rejected-PCIT v. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd [2025] 172 taxmann.com 283 / 474 ITR 175 (Bom)(HC) is… Read More ...
Caishen Enterprise LLP v. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Faceless assessment-Notice is issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer-On writ the Court set aside the notice issued under Section 148 and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom- Honourable Court has granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the order simply by moving a Praecipe before this… Read More ...
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs ACIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: The Assessing Officer has to give details in the recorded reasons as to which fact or material was not disclosed by the Petitioner that led to its income escaping assessment. A mere bald assertion in the reasons that there was a failure on the part of the Petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material… Read More ...
Carona Limited v. DCIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Disallowance of deduction- Method of accounting-Plausible interpretation of law-No malafide intention-Disclosed all relevant facts and no false statement-Penalty is deleted. [S. 43B, 145, 260A] The assessee claimed a deduction for the unpaid ad-hoc bonus. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction under Section 43B and imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing… Read More ...
Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue-Sales Tax Incentive- Purpose test-Incentive for setting up industrial unit in backward area- Sales tax incentive under 1979 and 1983 Schemes is capital receipt, not chargeable to tax. [S. 28(i), 43B, 1979 Scheme, 1983 Scheme] For the assessment year 1987–88, Bajaj Auto Ltd. set up a new industrial… Read More ...
Kotak Family Foundation v. CIT(E) (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 11 : Income from property held for charitable or religious purposes -Delay in e-verification of audit report-Audit report in Form 10B filed in time- E-verification delayed due to COVID-Delay is not intentional -Delay of 101 or 254 days within permissible limit-Rejection of condonation against principles of substantive justice-Procedural lapses should not override substantive justice,… Read More ...
SANDEEP GARG versus SALES TAX OFFICER (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court: The Department sends automated e-mails and SMSs whenever anything is uploaded on the portal. If the taxpayer is not diligent in checking the portal & no reply to the Show Cause Notice is filed, the department cannot be blamed (i) A perusal of the screenshot shows that the reminder notice was clearly visible on 09th… Read More ...
Darshan Singh Parmar v. UOI (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax, Act, 2017 S. 73 : Demands and Recovery-Tax evasion- Reward for providing information related to tax evasions-Reward determined but not paid by the government-Reward scheme should be operated fairly and avoid frivolous objections-Government directed to pay the reward with interest in case of delay-Circular GR No.STA-2004/CR-103 Taxation-2 dt. 05-06-2007. [S.… Read More ...