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
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 ...
CIT v. Abdull Aziz Abdul Kadar (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 50C : Capital gains-Full value of consideration-Stamp valuation- Transfer of tenancy right-Provision of Section 50 C is not applicable- Revenue has accepted the decision of Shri Atul G. Puranik v. ITO (2011) 132 ITD 499 (Mum)( Trib)- Appeal of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 45, 49] On appeal by the Revenue dismissing the appeal the… Read More ...
VINUBHAI MOHANLAL DOBARIA VERSUS CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: a. Whether an offence under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could be said to have been committed on the actual date of filing of return of income or on the day immediately after the due date for filing of returns as per Section 139(1) of the Act? b. What is the meaning… Read More ...
JACOB PUNNEN & ANR. Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. (Supreme Court)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6778 OF 2013: JACOB PUNNEN & ANR. Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6778 OF 2013 THE SUPREME COURT rejected the insurer’s argument that the consumer was under an obligation to inquire about the terms of the policy, and any changes that might have been introduced, in the standard terms. The… Read More ...
Police Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Gondia v/s Income Tax Officer Ward–2, Gondia (ITAT Nagpur)
Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench: The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the activity of providing credit facility to its members. Assessee is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of IT Act. Assessee filed its return of Income u/s. 139(1) of the Act declaring total income of Rs. NIL after claiming deduction of Rs. 72,09,175/- u/s. 80P of the Act.… Read More ...
Shashank Sadashiv Karkare vs ITO, Ward-1, Ratnagiri (ITAT Pune)
ITAT Pune: Filing of Form No.67 within the due date for filing of the return of income is not mandatory, but it is mere a directory under the provisions of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. On date of processing the return of income, a Form No.67 was uploaded, which the CPC, Bangalore had failed to take into… Read More ...
TVF Fund Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 90 : Double taxation relief-Capital gains-Exempt income-Set-off of losses-Carry-forward allowed-No set-off of capital losses against exempt gains permitted- Carry-forward of losses for future years is allowed, subject to that the set-off must be applied only to income which is taxable in India-DTAA-India-Mauritius. [S. 70, 74(1), 90(2), Art. 4, 13(3B) ,13(4)] The assessee, TVF Fund… Read More ...
Hiralal H. Malu, Legal Heir of Late Mrs. Shakuntala Hiralal Malu v. DDIT (Inv) (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 132B : Application of seized or requisitioned assets-Search and Seizure-Jewellery-Release of seized assets-Strictures-Accountability- Jewellery seized in the year 2005-Not released to the assessee even after 25 years - Loss of seized jewellery from the Bank locker-Legal heir entitled to return of jewellery-Income tax department and Bank held liable to compensate-Interim relief granted-The Court emphasized… Read More ...