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
PCIT v. Shree Ganesh Developers (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Sales tax department-Non genuine supplier-Failure to produce bank statements-The order of the Tribunal estimating the income at 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases is reversed insofar as the purchases from two parties and order of the Assessing Officer making 100% of addition under Section 69C of the Act is affirmed. [S. 133(6),… Read More ...
PCIT v. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Information from Sales-Tax Department-Failure to prove genuineness of purchases- Addition is justified-Order of the Appellate Tribunal holding that only profit estimation at 12.5% can be made is set aside-Order of the Assessing Officer is affirmed. [S. 133(6), 143(3), 144, 147, 148, 260A] The respondent-assessee, Kanak Impex (India) Ltd., engaged in… Read More ...
L. T. Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. v. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 279 : Offences and prosecutions-Sanction-Chief Commissioner- Commissioner-Compounding application filed beyond 36 months from the date of filing of complaint-Rejection of application-CBDT guidelines are not statute-Rejection of compounding application is quashed-Commissioner is directed to consider all facts and circumstances and decide whether such facts make out the case for exercising discretion in favour of compounding… Read More ...
CLE Private Ltd. v. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 147 : Reassessment-Limitation-TOLA did not apply as the limitation period expired before 20.03.2020- Notice under section 148 issued in 31-7-2022, which is beyond the prescribed time limit- Reassessment held to be invalid. [S. 68, 133(6), 142(1), 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 149, 151, 154, 115JB] The scrutiny assessment was completed under Section 143(3) 29 -12 -2017.… Read More ...
Indusind Media & Communications Ltd. v. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Change of opinion-Alleged double deduction-No failure to disclose material facts-Reassessment is quashed and set aside. [S. 143(3), 148, 149, 151, 36(1)(vii), 37(1), Art. 226] The assessee filed its original return of income in October 2007 and revised it in March 2009, claiming a deduction of ₹69,88,37,464 for inventories, sundry… Read More ...
Dilip Gangaram Patil v. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 147 : Reassessment-Revision-Notional rent-Income from house property-Change of opinion-Reopening based on issues already examined in revision proceedings-The original assessment order dt. 31.12.2015) is no longer existed, as it was set aside under Section 263- Making the reopening procedurally invalid-Reassessment is quashed. [S. 22, 143(3), 148, 149, 151, 263, Art. 226] The assessee, engaged in… Read More ...
H. K. Jewels Private Limited v. ADIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 132 : Search and Seizure-Ultra vires seizure-Stock in trade-Writ petition disposed of with directions to avail alternative remedy under S. 132B of the Act . [S. 131(1A), 132(1)(iii), 132B, Art. 226] The petitioners’ gold and jewellery were seized at Bhubaneswar Airport on 12 May 2024. They contended that the seizure was illegal and ultra… Read More ...
Satyam Computer Services Limited v. CBDT (Telangana High Court)
Telangana High Court : S. 119 : Central Board of Direct Taxes- Powers of CBDT – Genuine hardship – Reassessment – Fictitious income – CBDT’s refusal to allow re computation despite established fraud – Order quashed and set aside. [S. 10A, 119(2)(b), 139(5), 147, 154,245, 264, 281B, Art. 14, 19(1)(g), 226, 265, 300A] The petitioner, Satyam Computer Services Limited… Read More ...
Supreme Construction & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 73 : Determination of tax not paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised for any reason other than fraud or any wilful -misstatement or suppression of facts - Demands and recovery - Mere claim of demand being without jurisdiction does not warrant waiver of statutory pre-deposit requirement for filing… Read More ...
Abdul Saeed Issak v. INT Tax Ward (3) (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 151 : Reassessment - Sanction for issue of notice –Additional ground admitted - Approval from incorrect authority – Notice issued without valid sanction from specified authority – Notice is quashed and set aside. [S. 144C(13), 147, 148A(d), 151(ii), Art. 226] The assessee, a non-resident Indian, filed an e-return of income for AY 2017-18 on… Read More ...