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
Naresh Manakchand Jain v. The Registrar, ITAT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal- Powers-Ex -parte order-Search- Alleged Accommodation entry provider-32,000+ beneficiaries- Shell companies-Alleged Money Laundering-Direction issued by the Tribunal to AO to intimate / report to SEBI, ED, MCA and ROC regarding details of money laundering activities-Directed the Assessing officer to share information about all beneficiaries within 90 days-Ex-parte order was quashed-Direction of… Read More ...
Hasmukh Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice- Information–Internal Audit objection- Not permissible-Information not based on the objection raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India-Reassessment impermissible-Change of opinion-Audit objection raised by CAG a view deviating from that which was taken in the course of original assessment order is change of… Read More ...
Yogesh Bhomraj Porwal vs. PCIT (ITAT Pune)
G D Padmahshali : Not all legal heirs could be legal representative nor all legal representative are legal heirs. Right to file appeal by virtue of 159(3) is available to only legal representative who qualify u/s 2(29) of IT Act. Read More ...
Yashpal Jain VERSUS Sushila Devi & Others (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: This is a classic case and a mirror to the fact that litigant public may become disillusioned with judicial processes due to inordinate delay in the legal proceedings, not reaching its logical end, and moving at a snail’s pace due to dilatory tactics adopted by one or the other party. Every pending case represents a… Read More ...
AO vs. Nestle SA- MFN Clause (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: In the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the matter of AO Vs Nestle SA [2023 INSC 928], one of the issues which came up for consideration before Their Lordships was, to borrow their own words, "whether MFN clause is to be given effect to automatically or if it is to come into effect after a… Read More ...
C.I.T., DELHI vs. BHARTI HEXACOM LTD (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: (i) It is trite that where a transaction consists of payments in two parts, i.e., lump-sum payment made at the outset, followed up by periodic payments, the nature of the two payments would be distinct only when the periodic payments have no nexus with the original obligation of the assessee. However, in the present case,… Read More ...
Almech Enterprises v. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Unexplained investment-Unexplained money-Survey-Cash found less than the amount disclosed in the books of account–Addition cannot be made as an unexplained investment. [S. 69, 69A, 115BBE, 133A, 145] During the survey proceedings in the premises of the Assessee, actual cash of Rs. 11,800/- was found as against the cash in hand of… Read More ...
Ocean Diving Centre Ltd. v. CIT(A) (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets ) and Imposition of Act , 2015 . S. 43 : Penalty for failure to furnish return of income an information or furnish inaugurate particulars of an asset (Including financial interest in any entity) outside India- Asset was not disclosed in Schedule FA-Disclosed in Schedule Part A-85-Bonafide mistake-When… Read More ...
Evershine Recreation Private Limited v. DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh)
Chandigarh Tribunal: S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Accommodation entries-Shell companies-Borrowed satisfaction-Information from investigation wing-Natural justice- Search-Survey-No failure to disclose material facts-Without the application of mind-Opportunity for cross-examination was not provided-Reassessment was quashed. (Tribunal has passed 359 pages order dealing with all issues on reassessment proceedings.) [S. 131, 132, 132(4), 133(6), 133A, 148, 153A, 153C]… Read More ...
Parina Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 144 : Best judgment assessment one-time settlement-Order passed in the year 2016 – High Court set aside the ex-parte order – Directed the Assessing Officer provide all the evidence and recorded reasons -Directed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to pass a reasoned order. [S. 147, 148, 179, 264, Art. 226] The Assessing Officer passed an… Read More ...