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
ND’s Art World Private Limited v. Add. CIT
Bombay High Court: S. 119 : Central Board of Direct Taxes- Circular-Return of income -Condonation of delay-Jurisdictional error-Power vested in CBDT- Order passed by Dy. CIT (OSD) (OT & WT) is without jurisdiction- Quashed and remanded to CBDT. [S. 119(2)(b) , 139, Art. 226] The petitioner filed an application under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of a 10-month delay… Read More ...
Anandkumar Rathod v. UOI (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Show cause notice less than 7 days-Personal hearing through video conference is not granted-All replies are considered-Alternative remedy-Writ petition is dismissed. [S. 143(3), Art. 226] The petitioner challenged the order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act on the ground of principle of natural justice. Revenue contended… Read More ...
Vijay Maneklal Banushali v. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 68 : Cash credits-Purchase and sales through book entries with sub -broker-Commodity exchange-Futures Speculative transactions- Forward market commission-Accommodate bogus loss-Transaction with sub –broker-Addition is deleted. On the basis of information from investigation wing the Assessment of the appellant was reopened. The Assessing Officer added entire purchase and sales transactions with sub broker as cash… Read More ...
Shri Panchmurti Education Society v. ITO (ITAT Nagpur)
NAGPUR BENCH: S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Belated filing of return- Denial of exemption is not justified- Addition made under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act is deleted-Directed to accept the returned income-Circular of CBDT is binding on Revenue. [S. 12, 12A(1)(b), 119, 139(1), 139(4), 143(1)(a)(ii)] Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that… Read More ...
Bharat Education Society v. UOI (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 119 : Central Board of Direct Taxes- Circular-Condonation of delay of 1585 days-Revised return-Principle of natural justice-No personal hearing was granted-In the absence of any provision to the contrary, such principles should be read into the unoccupied interstices of a statute-Order of rejection is set aside and directed to pass the order after granting… Read More ...
Rakesh Brijal Jain v. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 . S. 2(1)(u) : “Proceeds of crime” means any property derived or obtained directly by property derived or obtained directly or indirectly ,by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a schedule offence or value of any such property - Offence of money laundering – Punishment… Read More ...
Viswaat Chemicals Ltd. v. UOI (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: Goods and Service Tax Act , 2017 S.73 : Determination of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised by reason of fraud or any willful -misstatement or suppression of facts- Challenge against show cause notice under the CGST-Writ against show cause notice is dismissed-Alternative remedy-No… Read More ...
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – INTERNATIONAL TAXATION versus SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court: Whether secondment of employees constitutes a Fixed Place Permanent Establishment [“PE”] in India within the meaning of Article 5 of the Double Tax Avoidance Treaty between India and Korea (i) Although information was exchanged and plans and strategies for the Indian market were also discussed, none of the activities undertaken by those seconded employees could… Read More ...
Jayant Avinash Dave v. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Short term capital loss-Long term capital gains-No specific allegation in the reopening notice to disclose any material facts- Reasons for reopening were based entirely on records already available during the original assessment- Reopening notice, order disposing the objection order, reassessment order, and the demand notice is quashed… Read More ...
ACIT v. Jay Bharat Mehta (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 54F : Capital gains-Investment in a residential house-Joint property purchase with wife-Joint transfer for consideration-The wife's inclusion in the property title was deemed nominal and for convenience-Denial of exemption is not valid. [S. 45, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S. 45] The assessee claimed deduction under section 54F in respect of purchase of house… Read More ...