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
Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan Alandi Dewachi vs. ITO (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: Even 143(1) assessment cannot be reopened for conducting fishing enquiry or merely on suspicion. Where trust is a religious institution which receives offerings from devotees to their deity of faith in cash or otherwise, mere fact that there are cash deposits cannot mean that there is any reason to believe that income has escaped assessment,… Read More ...
Chokshi Arvind Jewellers vs. Union of India (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: (1) The power exercised by the proper officer under Section 110(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 in directing provisional attachment of the bank account of a person is quite drastic or coercive in nature resulting in attracting civil consequences. If a bank account of a person is attached, it would certainly cause severe prejudice to… Read More ...
A V Wandhekar Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Income Tax Tribunal, Pune : Assessee retired after serving State Government partly and partly State PSU, the Gratuity and Leave Encashment exemption to be computed in two separate portion. One for Government Service and one for non-government Service. Retirement benefit accrued for a former period shall be exempt without limit and later period shall be exempt to the extent of… Read More ...
Indian National Congress All India Congress Committee vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi: (i) Under the first Proviso below Section 254(2A) of the Act, it is only in cases where the merits of the application have been made out, that the Tribunal would be justified in exercising its power of grant of stay on the recovery proceedings. (ii) Prima facie, the income tax authorities have not made any… Read More ...
RAZORPAY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA (Karnataka High Court)
Karnataka High Court: If a payment gateway had no knowledge that the funds transferred to the merchant IDs of the accused were derived from criminal activity related to a scheduled offense and it did not knowingly assist the accused in concealing or transferring illicit proceeds as clean money, it cannot be said to have committed any offense under… Read More ...
PCIT v. Ziauddin A. Siddique (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 68 : Cash credits-Long term capital gains-Penny stock-Not subjected to any enquiry by SEBI-Sold through DMAT account-STT paid-Purchased at a rate as low as Rs.2.5/- to Rs. 3/- per share and they were sold at a rate extremely as high as Rs.125/- to Rs. 185/- per share-Order of Tribunal deleting the addition is affirmed.… Read More ...
Chirag Tejpraksh Dangi v. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 68 : Cash credits-Long term capital gains-Penny stock-Information from Investigation wing from Kolkata-Estimation of commission-Not subjected to any enquiry by SEBI -Statement of the assesse-Sold through DMAT account-Addition as cash credits and estimation of commission is deleted. [S. 10(38), 45, 69C, 131] The aassessee has sold the shares of , Radford Global Ltd. (Earlier… Read More ...
High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. & Ors (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: The Larger Bench of the Supreme Court was called upon to decide the following questions: - (a) Whether the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, can order automatic vacation of all interim orders of the High Courts of staying proceedings of Civil and Criminal cases… Read More ...
Ashok Chaganlal Thakkar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: If the agricultural land sold was a rural agricultural land as per Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and the agricultural land situated in rural area was not covered in the definition of capital asset, no capital gain is applicable. The provisions of Section 2(14)(iii) of the act does not require that agricultural operations should be… Read More ...
BHARTI CELLULAR LIMITED (NOW BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED) VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: The issue is whether Cellular mobile telephone service providers have a liability to deduct tax at source under Section 194-H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the amount which, as per the Revenue, is a commission payable to an agent by the assessees under the franchise/distributorship agreement between the assessees and the franchisees/distributors. As… Read More ...