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
Skytech Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax Nodal (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax (MGST Act), 2017 S: 83 : Provisional attachment to protect revenue in certain cases-Cash credit accounts-Not a property of the account holder-Cannot be attached provisionally u/s 83- Directed to withdraw the attachment within 24 hours. [S.83(1), Art. 226] The petitioner’s cash credit account with ICICI Bank was provisionally attached under… Read More ...
PCIT v. Hans Chemicals Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 268A : Appeal-Instructions-Circulars-Monetary limits-2 crores-Applicability of revised CBDT monetary limits (Circular No 3 of 2018 dt. 11-7-2028 (2018) 405 ITR 29 (St), Circular 9 of 2024 , dated 17th September, 2024, (2024) 468 ITR 1 (St.)-Exceptions Apply Prospectively -Pending Appeals Covered by revised threshold-Appeal of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 260A] In this case, the… Read More ...
Gokulakrishna v. DCIT (ITAT Chennai)
Chennai Tribunal: S. 45(4) : Capital gains-Distribution of capital asset-Dissolution of firm - Introduction of new partner-Amount received by existing partner for sacrificing his profit-sharing ratio-Realignment of share ratio - No transfer of asset - No capital gain taxable on relinquishment of share ratio-Post amendment, 2021, Finance Act, 2021. [S. 2(14), 2(47), 9B, 45] The assessee is… Read More ...
NICAF LLP v. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S: 68 : Cash credits-Unexplained Credit-Conversion of Company to LLP-Capital Account-Accumulated Profits-Capital gains-Mere accounting entry, without actual monetary benefit to the partners, does not constitute payment for alleged Violation of Section 47(xiiib)(f)-Book Entry-No Actual Payment-Burden on AO-Addition is deleted. [S. 45, 47(xxib)(f), 115BBE, Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, S. 56, 57] NICAF LLP is engaged… Read More ...
Goldman Tapes Private Limited v. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 69A : Unexplained Investments-Unexplained Money- Demonetization-Deposit of cash-Business receipts-Recorded in Books –Acceptance of Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) prior to 31.12.2016 is not illegal-Addition is deleted. During assessment, the AO identified substantial cash deposits made during demonetization and sought clarification. The assessee stated the cash, in the form of Specified Bank Notes (SBNs), was received… Read More ...
M.K. Shelters v. ITO Ward (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 153A : Assessment-Search-Alleged transfer of Development rights-Reassessment based on seized ledger account and third-party statement-No independent inquiry conducted by the AO-No evidence to link the assessee to the transaction-Addition is deleted. [S. 131, 147, 148, 153A, 153C] The assessee has been a dormant firm since 2003 and received a reassessment notice u/s 147 r/w… Read More ...
M. K. Shelters v. ITO Ward (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Issued notice without disposing of assessee’s objections-Breach of principle of natural justice-Reassessment order was quashed. [S. 147, 153A] The AO failed to dispose of the assessee’s objections before passing the reassessment order. The ITAT observed that when an assessee files objections against a reassessment notice, the AO is required to first address… Read More ...
Sanjivani Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Vs Income Tax Officer Ward–2, Bhandara (ITAT Nagpur)
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR: Deletion of Arbitrary Addition under Section 69A In the instant case, a 10% ad hoc addition on cash deposits was deleted. The Tribunal held that once the explanation for source of funds is found to be substantially correct, there is no scope for estimated additions under Section 69A. Taxation must rest on evidence, not assumptions.… Read More ...
Shri Rupesh Laldas Dhakate Vs Income Tax Officer Ward–1, Bhandara (ITAT Nagpur)
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR: 🔹 Reassessment Invalid under Section 148/149(1)(b) In the instant case, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings since the alleged escaped income was below ₹50 lakh. It reaffirmed that the extended time limit under section 149(1)(b) cannot apply unless the threshold is crossed – a welcome interpretation aligning with the Finance Act, 2021 and judicial precedents… Read More ...
DCIT v. M. Mahadevan (ITAT Chennai)
Chennai Tribunal: S. 6(1) : Residence in India-Individual -Stayed more than 60 days in each year-More than 365 days in India for a period or periods amounting to all to 365 days or more-More than 183 days for AY. 2013 -14 & 2014-15-Control and management office is located in Chennai , India-Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) data… Read More ...