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
Anil Ramchandran Pillai v. NFAC (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 143(3) : Assessment- Appeal pending before CIT(A)-Writ- Alternate remedy-Writ petition not maintainable- Extraordinary jurisdiction-Not to be invoked when alternate statutory remedy is available- The Court directed CIT(A) to dispose of the appeals (both against assessment and penalty orders) within eight weeks. [S. 144B, 250, Art. 226] The assessee challenged the assessment order passed, demand… Read More ...
Shree Arihant Oil and General Mills v. UOI (Raj)(HC)
Rajasthan High Court : Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. S. 54 : Refund of tax-Input tax credit-Inverted duty structure- Notification No. 09/2022 dated 13-07-2022 applicable prospectively -Refund cannot be denied for period up to 18-07-2022-Circular restricting refund claims only if filed before 18-07-2022 held arbitrary and violative of Article 14-Refund application filed within limitation period of two… Read More ...
Sunidhi Securities & Finance Limited v. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Notice issued under section 148 with sanction of PCIT instead of JCIT-Survey- Invalid sanction-Assessment held to be null and void. [S. 133A, 143(3), 151(2), 147 , 148] The assessee, engaged in stock broking and financial services, had filed its return which was assessed under section 143(3). Subsequently, on… Read More ...
Ramesh Dnyandeo Dhuri v. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 56 : Income from other sources-Immovable property- Purchase consideration-DVO valuation-Difference of 7% within 10% safe harbor-Amendment by Finance Act, 2020 curative and retrospective- Addition deleted. [S. 50C, 56(2)(x)(b)(B)] The assessee, an individual, purchased a property for ₹60,00,000/-. The District Valuation Officer (DVO) valued the property at ₹64,84,000/-, resulting in a difference of ₹4,84,000/-. The… Read More ...
BUNDELKHAND UNIVERSITY, JHANSI VS ASSESSMENT UNIT(EXEMPTION) (ITAT Agra)
HONBLE ITAT,AGRA SMC BENCH ,AGRA: FOR A MERE TECHNICAL VENIAL BREACH COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSSEE IN FURNISHING THE REQUISITE DETAILS AT THE TIME OF OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ,WHICH WERE ULTIMATELY FURNISED SUBSEQUENTLY BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3), NO PENALTY U/S 272A(1)(d) CAN BE LEVIED . Read More ...
Dy. CIT v. Hardcastle Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 153A : Assessment-Search-Abated assessment-No incriminating material was found-Alleged bogus purchases-Addition was deleted. [S. 69C, 132] Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Tribunal held that without any incriminating material found during search proceedings the addition cannot be made in respect of abated assessment. Followed, PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 212 /… Read More ...
Pradeep Jeyavelu v. ITO (ITAT Chennai)
Chennai Tribunal: S. 64 : Clubbing of income-Minor child-Capital gains-Sale of inherited property-Minor daughter’s share deposited in nationalized bank under Court order-Not includible in assessee’s hands. [S. 45, 54F, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, S.8(2)] The assessee sold property inherited from his deceased wife, being entitled along with his minor daughter to equal shares. The City… Read More ...
Natesan Ekambaram v. DCIT (ITAT Chennai)
Chennai Tribunal: S. 54F : Capital gains- Investment in a residential house–Advance received cannot be assessed as capital gains–The AO was directed to recompute the capital gains on actual consideration and also directed to allow the exemption under section 54F. [S. 45] The assessee, an individual, sold 30.35 cents of land out of 121 cents situated at… Read More ...
Steadview Capital Mauritius Limited v. CIT (International Taxation) (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT, Mumbai Bench: The Assessee was a SEBI-registered foreign portfolio investor. During the assessment proceedings, the AO called upon the assessee to explain why the long term capital loss should not be set off against the long term capital gain. The assessment was concluded after considering the reply of the assessee, after which notice u/s 263 was issued.… Read More ...
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 ...