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
Hitesh G Somani vs. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
ITAT, Ahmedabad: When assessee purchased three flats at single floor and combined them with one entry and exit and got them registered through a single sale deed, assessee was entitle to claim exemption u/s 54 even after amendment applicable from A.Y. 2015-16 Read More ...
ACIT vs. Krishna Coil Cutters P Ltd (ITAT Ahmedabad)
ITAT, Ahmedabad: When Company advancing money to a company which was a substantial shareholders for mutual business benefits and when such advancement was on interest at prevailing market rates and when company advancing funds was also engaged in money lending activities, money received by shareholder company cannot be taxed as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Read More ...
DCIT v. Leena Power Tech Engineers Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S.68: Cash credits-Share application money-Shell company-The DCF method adopted is incorrect and fallacious-the two investing companies held to fit the description of a shell company-The burden is on the assessee to prove the identity, capacity and genuineness and nature and source of credits in his books of accounts, to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer… Read More ...
Maheshbhai Shantilal Patel Vs PCIT Ahmedabad (Gujarat High Court)
Gujarat High Court: Maheshbhai Patel Vs PCIT Ahemedabad Forum-Gujarat High Court Date-23rd September,2021 Sub-Whether when an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is accepted by the Tribunal, the appeal would relate back to the due date and would be said to be pending on 31st January 2020 for the purpose of validity of the application… Read More ...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs Leena Power Tech Engineers Pvt Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH: Issue- The addition of share application money received amounting to Rs 8,13,29,600 invoking section 68 of the Act, in proceedings u/s 147/148. CIT(A) deleted the addition however, the Hon'ble ITAT vacate the relief granted by the learned CIT(A) and restore the impugned additions made by the Assessing Officer. In this case the assessment was reopened… Read More ...
S. Karthik & Ors Vs N Subhash Chand Jain & Ors (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: *S. Karthik & Ors Vs N Subhash Chand Jain & Ors* *Forum-Supreme Court of India* *Date-23rd September,2021* *Sub-How an ingenious litigant, by taking recourse to a series of proceedings one after the other, has been successful in blocking the enforcement of a security interest, created in favour of a secured creditor, thereby defeating the very… Read More ...
DCIT v. Surbhit Impex Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 41(1) : Profit Chargeable to tax - Remission or cessation of trading liability-Amounts not written off-matter sub-judice before Hon'ble High Court - No addition can be made- Department should be more careful while filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal where the facts are undisputed. The Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in a Departmental appeal challenging… Read More ...
Tapas Kumar Basak Vs ADIT (International Taxation) & Ors(Calcutta High Court)
Calcutta High Court: *Tapas Kumar Basak Vs ADIT Int Tax & Ors * *Forum-Calcutta High Court* *Date-16th September,2021* *WPO No 931 of 2007* *Sub- Whether commissioner in exercise of power u/s 264 can revise the order passed by the AO treating the assessee as a resident even though the assessee claimed the status of Non resident?* The assessee… Read More ...
Director of Income-tax New Delhi Vs Mitsubishi Corporation (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: Director of Income-tax New Delhi Vs Mitsubishi Corporation Date-17th September,2021 Forum-Supreme Court of India Subject-Whether interest u/s 234B for default in payment of advance tax due to non deduction of tax at source by the payer is liable to be paid for AY 2012-13 and earlier years (as the law was amended with effect from… Read More ...
Vijaykumar Bhima Dighe vs. UOI (Bombay High Court – Nagpur Bench)
Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench): Appointment of Members-Adjudicating Members-State Consumer Commission-District Consumer Forums- Tribunals-Appointment Process, Minimum experience-20 years for appointment of President and 15 years for members of state Commission- Unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India- Advocate with 10 years of experience at the Bar eligible for appointment as Members in Tribunals- Rules-Struck down. [Consumer… Read More ...