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
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 ...
COFORGE Limited(formerly known as NIIT Technologies Limited) Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court)
Delhi high court : Coforge Limited (formerly known as NIIT Limited) Vs ACIT Forum- Delhi High court Date 5th July 2021 Sub- whether commuted value of lease rent for 90 years paid in one go in an year is a revenue expenditure deductible in the year of payment. The Delhi high court in this case was dealing interalia with… Read More ...
Amber Bhubaneswar Vs DCIT Circle 2(1) & Others (Orissa High Court)
Orissa High Court: *Amber, Bhubaneswar Vs DCIT, Circle 2(1) & Others* *Forum-Orissa High Court* *Date -5th July 2021* *Sub-Whether reassessment in pursuance of information in the course of search amounts to change of opinion and whether not affording cross examination at the objection stage amounts to violation of natural justice.* In the above case the Orissa High Court… Read More ...
UNION OF INDIA VERSUS M/S VISHNU AROMA POUCHING PVT. LTD (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: Such lethargy on part of the revenue department with so much computerization having been achieved is no more acceptable. The petitioner has approached the Court in a casual manner without any cogent or plausible ground for condonation of delay. Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the application has been… Read More ...