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
Mukul Kumar Singh Versus The Commissioner, Income Tax (Patna High Court)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA: The trust deficit between the Department and the Assessee, perhaps has led to the litigation being prolonged for more than a decade and a half. Every public body and Institution has a duty not only to build goodwill and defend its reputation but also to instill faith in the mind of public with regard to… Read More ...
Commissioner of Income Tax21 vs. Ms. Chhaya B. Parekh
Hon'ble Bombay High Court: Claim of exemption under section 54F of the Act is eligible even though the House property which the Assessee had purchased as coowner had been demolished before completing 3 years of purchase and no new house property was constructed. Does not violate section 54F(3) of the Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Vania Silk Mills… Read More ...
Smt. Meena Gupta vs. The Income Tax Officer
ITAT Delhi: Reopening quashed in information from investigation wing where objections not disposed and material not confronted along with reasons recorded (Bombay High court in Fomento resorts followed) Read More ...
VIKAS STRIPS LTD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 26(2)
ITAT Delhi: In reassessment Notice u/s 143(2) must be issued only and only after filing return of income in response to notice u/s 148. Prior issue of notice before such return is redundant therefore reassessment cancelled and quashed Read More ...
Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai: S. 10(38)/68: Bogus Capital Gains from Penny Stocks: The AO has not discharged the onus of controverting the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee and by bringing on record any cogent material to sustain the addition. The allegation of price rigging / manipulation has been levied without establishing the vital link between the assessee and… Read More ...
Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma (Supreme Court) (Larger Bench)
Supreme Court: (i) S. 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confers status of coparcener on daughters born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with the same rights and liabilities, (ii) The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from 9.9.2005 with savings as provided in Section 6(1) as… Read More ...
Karmic Labs Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai: S. 56(2)(viib)/ Rule 11UA: The assessee has the choice to choose a prescribed method for ascertaining the market value of the shares transferred. If the assessee has chosen one method of valuation provided under Rule 11UA (i.e. DCF method), the AO has no power or jurisdiction to change that method to another method (All imp… Read More ...
Ravinder Kaur Grewal vs. Manjit Kaur (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: The settled legal position is that when by virtue of a family settlement or arrangement, members of a family descending from a common ancestor or a near relation seek to sink their differences and disputes, settle and resolve their conflicting claims or disputed titles once and for all in order to buy peace of mind… Read More ...
Shree Choudhary Transport Co vs. ITO (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: (i) Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia), 40A(3) etc are intended to enforce due compliance of the requirement of other provisions of the Act and to ensure proper collection of tax as also transparency in dealings. The interest of a bonafide assessee who had made the deduction as required and had paid the same to the revenue is… Read More ...
Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai: The disallowance under the Explanation to 37(1) of "freebies" to doctors by relying on CBDT Circular No. 5 dated 01.08.2012 & the IMC (Professional Conduct, Etiquettes & Ethics) Regulation, 2002 is not justified. The code of conduct prescribed by the Medical Council is applicable only to medical practitioners/ doctors registered with the MCI and does… Read More ...