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
Ankit Gems Private Limited v. Circle 5(1)(1) (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT, Mumbai Bench: Delay in filing appeal by 427 days due to health issues of an employee who was entrusted with income-tax compliance matters, must be condoned, since assessee does not gain anything by causing the delay. The appeal must be decided on merits. On merits, it was held that an assessee cannot be required to prove a… Read More ...
VIJAY KRISHNASWAMI VERSUS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) (SUPREME COURT)
Supreme Court: Section 276C(1): Prosecution for Wilful attempt to evade tax cannot be initiated until the ITAT confirms levy of penalty (i) As per departmental circular dated 24.04.2008, Prosecution Manual, 2009, and CBDT’s circular dated 09.09.2019, prosecution under Section u/s 276C(1) shall be launched only after the confirmation of the order imposing penalty by the Income Tax… Read More ...
ABDUL HAMID NACHAR VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 SRINAGAR (ITAT Amritsar)
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: ABDUL HAMID NACHAR Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 Read More ...
Sky High Leasing Company Ltd. v. ACIT (Intl. Tax) (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Aircraft leasing-Multilateral Instrument (MLI)-Principal Purpose Test (PPT) cannot be applied in absence of specific Sec. 90(1) notification-Lease rentals not taxable as royalty-No Permanent establishment in India- Entitle to treaty benefit-DTAA-India Ireland. [S. 9(1)(i), 90(1), 143(3), 144C(13), 234A, 234B, 270A, Art. 5, 6, 7 , 8(1)… Read More ...
Dhanraj Govindram Kella v. ITO (Gujarat High Court)
Gujarat High Court : S. 147 : Reassessment-Validity of notices issued under old regime after 01.04.2021-Limitation and sanction under new regime- Considering the surviving time available-limitation under S.149 had expired or sanction under S.151 of appropriate authority was lacking, the reassessment notices were invalid. [S. 148, 148A, 149, 151, Art. 226] The assessee challenged notices issued u/s 148 (old… Read More ...
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 ...