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
Vedanta Limited Vs DCIT Chennai (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court: *Vedanta Limited Vs DCIT CompanyCircle 6(2), Chennai *. *WP No 25529 of 2015* *Forum Madras High Court* *Date -15th July2021* *Sub-Whether when the notice u/s 148 is issued in the name of a company which is already merged with another company, Can the apex court decision in the case of Maruti Suzuki be applied or… Read More ...
Tripura Cricket Association Vs The ACIT & Ors (Calcutta High Court)
Calcutta High Court: *Tripura Cricket Association Vs The ACIT & Ors* *Date 26th July 2021* *Forum Calcutta High Court* *WPA No 8480 of 2020 and 8483 of 2020* *Sub-Whether petition u/s 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act,1961 for condonation of delay in filing Form No 10 can be entertained by CBDT beyond the period as prescribed* The appellant in… Read More ...
Vinay Ramchandra Somani v. ACIT; Shrilekha Vinay Somani (Smt.) v. ACIT
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 54F : Capital gains-Investment in a residential house-Sale of land -Allotment of flat as per an escrow document-Denial by builder- Assessing Officer taxing the value of flat as deemed consideration and denying the exemption-Since Assessee has performed his part of duty by disclosing the sale prior to its receipt, then it is deemed on… Read More ...
Civitech Developers Private Limited Vs National E-assessment Centre, New Delhi(Delhi High court)
Delhi High Court: Civitech Developers Private Limited Vs National E-assessment Centre, New Delhi Date-22nd July 2021 Forum-Delhi High Court Sub-Whether grant of personal hearing is mandatory before an e-assessment order is passed In this case where the request for personal video link was not enabled inspite of repeated requests, the Appellate could not explain the complex issue to… Read More ...
Ankit Kapoor v. ITO (Delhi)(HC)(UR)
Delhi High Court : S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-High Court directed the Appellate Tribunal to upload the daily order sheets and revised cause list on its website-System in this regard be put in place by the ITAT, if not already there as expeditiously as possible, preferable within three months. [S. 255, Art. 226] The Miscellaneous application of the assessee… Read More ...
ACIT vs. Sur Buildcon Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi: To elaborate, Section 142 of the Act provides for the procedure to be followed by the A.O. while making the requisite enquiries before concluding an assessment. Section 142(1) of the Act empowers the A.O. to call for information/material from the assessee. Section142 (2) empowers the A.O. to make such enquiry as may be necessary for… Read More ...
Prakash Gupta Vs SEBI (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court of India: Prakash Gupta Vs SEBI Supreme Court of India Date-23rd July 2021 Sub-Whether consent of SEBI has to be read in Section 24A of SEBI Act 1992 dealing with compounding of offences, even though the section doesn’t provide for such consent. Supreme Court deals with the entire jurisprudence on the compounding of an offence. In this… Read More ...
Laureate Buildwell Private Limited Vs Charanjeet Singh (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court of India: *Laureate Build-well Private Limited Vs Charanjeet Singh* *Forum- Supreme Court of India* *Date- 22nd July, 2021* *Sub-Whether Subsequent purchaser of an apartment from the original allottee in an under construction project stands on the same footing as the original purchaser and entitled to same relief* A 3 judges bench of Supreme Court today (22nd July… Read More ...
kONE ELEVATORS (INDIA) P LTD VS ACIT (Madras High Court)
MADRAS HIGH COURT: After 4years from the end of the assessment year, a scrutiny assessment allowing deduction u/s. 10B can't be re-opened for the reason that the approval by Industries Department has not been ratified by the board. Read More ...
Amit Balakrishna Jalan v . ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 23 : Income from house property-Annual value-Annual value should be restricted to municipal ratable value-Estimate at 6% of cost of value of flat was held to be not justified. [S. 22, 23(1)(c)] The Assessing Officer adopted 8% of the cost of flat while computing the notional value of the house property. On appeal the… Read More ...