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
Sanjay Patel v. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Income from other sources-Failure to respond to notice-Audit objection after amendment-Factual disputes cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings when an alternative remedy is available-Writ petition is dismissed with liberty to file an appeal. [S. 57, 142(1), 143(3), 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226] The petitioner, an… Read More ...
Ramchandra Udaysingh Jadhavrao vs ACIT, Circle-3, Pune (ITAT Pune)
ITAT Pune: Key Facts: The assessee, Ramchandra Udaysingh Jadhavrao, is a proprietor of M/s. JKG Developers, engaged in construction and land development. He filed his return of income for AY 2016-17 on 31.01.2017, declaring a total income of ₹12.37 crores. A survey under Section 133A was conducted at his business premises on 14.09.2016. During the survey, he… Read More ...
ACIT v. Neelam Omprakash Singh (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Development agreement-Cost Inflation Index-Year of taxability-Tribunal’s common order applied to all co-owners- Miscellaneous application of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 45, 48, 254(1)] The assessee filed a return for AY .2008-09, declaring long term capital gains in respect of development rights. The Assessing Officer assessed the… Read More ...
Sejal Jewellery & Others v. UOI (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 148 : Reassessment-Income of any other person-Search-Search material pertains to third party-Notice of reassessment under Section 148 is held without jurisdiction-Section 153C and not section 148 is to be resorted to- Notice of reassessment is quashed and set aside. [S. 132, 147, 151(1), 153A, 153C, Art. 226] The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in… Read More ...
The Board of Control for Cricket in India vs ACIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: (i) Whether the ITAT, after recording a categorical finding that the impugned communication/order dated 28 December 2009 did not amount to any order of cancellation of BCCI's registration under Section 12A of the IT Act, 1961 and further holding that since there was no cancellation, no appeal was maintainable against the impugned communication/order dated 28… Read More ...
M.M. Patel Charitable Trust vs PCIT (Central), Pune (ITAT Pune)
ITAT Pune: In a significant ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune has overturned the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), which had canceled the registration of M.M. Patel Public Charitable Trust under Sections 12A and 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision provides a major relief to charitable institutions by… Read More ...
The Borivali Education Society v. CIT (E) (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 119 : Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Property held for charitable purposes-Form No. 10B was filed manually before due date of filing of return-Mandatory e-filing of Form 10B-Delay of 2732 days in filing the form electronically-Delay is condoned-The delay should be condoned as long as such lapse is not mala fide and the assessee has… Read More ...
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS VERSUS M/S INTERNATIONAL HEALTH CARE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: At the time of seeking registration under Section 12-AA, the authority must be subjectively satisfied that the objects and proposed activities of the Trust are genuinely charitable in nature. It is not required that the trust should be carrying on activities at the stage of registration (i) The very purpose for any assessee to seek… Read More ...
Prashant Jaipal Reddy v. ITO (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S.2(14)(iii): Capital asset-Agricultural land-Land is not used for agricultural purposes-Self-serving ledger entries-Property was sold before starting agricultural activity - Failed to file affidavit under Rule 10 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, pointing out that none of the Commissioner’s findings were contrary to the evidence on record or that the Commissioner or other… Read More ...
RAMESH MISHRIMAL JAIN VERSUS AVINASH VISHWANATH PATNE (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: Bombay Stamp Act: Stamp duty is on the instrument and not on the transaction. An agreement which contemplates the delivery of possession of the property within the stipulated time should be deemed to be a conveyance for the purpose of duty leviable under the Bombay Stamp Act (i) The legal position is very clear that… Read More ...