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
Rohan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (IT) (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court : S. 195 : Deduction at source - Non-resident – Lower deduction of tax – Indexation – Binding precedent – Order of Tribunal is binding on lower Authorities - Capital gains - Cost of acquisition of the property in the hands of seller is deemed to be the cost for which the said property was acquired… Read More ...
Tata Sons Limited v. Dy.CIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court : S. 147 : Reassessment – After the expiry of four years - No failure to disclose material facts – Change of opinion – Capital gains or business income – Sale of shares – Reassessment proceedings are quashed. [S. 28(i), 45, 148, 154, Art. 226] The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act and… Read More ...
Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court : S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts-Information based on search of third party -Reason recorded not indicated anywhere or any stretch of imagination the income has escaped assessment–Non application of mind by the sanctioning authority–Observed that the Assessing Officers will record better reasons for reopening and the Authority… Read More ...
Pradeep Kumar and another Vs Post Master General and others (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court of India: Pradeep Kumar and another Vs Post Master General and others Forum-Supreme court of India Date-7th February 2022 Sub-Whether post office is liable for payment of KVPs to the original holder when the same is encashed by the agent of the Post office by fraud. The law relating to holder, holder in due course , payment… Read More ...
Lokhanwala Construction Industries v. Dy. CIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court : S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Builder stock in trade-Notional income-Reassessment notice on the basis of Judgement of Delhi High Court in Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Company Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 180 (Delhi)(HC) to assessee the income under section 23 of the Act was quashed. [S. 22, 23(5), 148, Art. 226] The… Read More ...
Design Point Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Union of India (Gujarat High Court)
High Court of Gujarat : On account of financial hardship, after the period of 1.5 years from the due date to make payment under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 [SVLDR Scheme], the Hon'ble Court allowed the petitioner to make payment of outstanding dues under the SVLDR Scheme. Further, in absence of issuance of pre-consultation notice, the Hon'ble Court… Read More ...
Ambika Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd v. PCIT (Orissa High Court)
Orissa High Court : S. 151 : Reassessment - Sanction for issue of notice–Issuance of Notice requires the sanction of PCIT where the Notice is issued after 4 years – Relaxation Act not a bar for appropriate sanction- Reassessment notice is held to be bad in law. [S. 147, 148, Art, 226] It has been held that where the… Read More ...
Sudesh Taneja v. ITO (Rajasthan High Court)
Rajasthan High Court : S. 148: Reassessment – Notice-Constitutional validity – The delegation authorized being only for the purpose of enlarging limitation under a valid law, such delegation could not be exercised to resurrect the provision of law that stood omitted from the statute book by virtue of its substitution made by the Finance Act, 2021, w.e.f. 01.04.2021 –… Read More ...
ANUU AGROTECH ( P) LTD. Vs PCIT- UDAIPUR (ITAT Jaipur)
ITAT , JAIPUR ' B ' BENCH: ANNU AGROTECH (P) LTD. vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- UDAIPUR ITAT, JAIPUR 'B' BENCH Member(s) Sandeep Gosain, J.M. & Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M. ITA No. 9/Jp/2021; Asst. yr. 2016-17 Date of decision 15th September, 2021 The assessee received funds during the previous year in the form of share premium. The case of the assessee… Read More ...
Credtalpha Alternative Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : Sec. 56(2)(viib)-Discounted cash flow method adopted by assessee -cannot be changed by AO without cogent reason - Projections employed in the DCF valuation cannot be compared with actual results to discard the valuation. Assessing Officer cannot challenge the method of valuation adopted by the assessee for the purpose of sec. 56(2)(viib) once the Assessee adopts… Read More ...