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
Amrish Manoj Dhupalia v. DCIT, Bhavya Manoj Dhupalia (Ms) v. DCIT, Mohan Manoj Dhupalia v. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Additional legal ground is admitted-Not specifying the charge-Levy of penalty is not valid-Substantial question of law is admitted before High Court-Penalty cannot be levied-The decision in Veena Estate P. Ltd. v. CIT (2024) 464 ITR 483 (Bom.)(HC) is distinguished. [S. 68, 69, 260A, 274] The AO levied the penalty u/s. 271(1)( c)… Read More ...
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS JUPITER CAPITAL PVT. LTD (SUPREME COURT)
Supreme Court: The reduction in share capital of the subsidiary company and subsequent proportionate reduction in the shareholding of the assessee would be squarely covered within the ambit of the expression “sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset” used in Section 2(47) the Income Tax Act, 1961 (a) Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which… Read More ...
SANJAY SHARMA VERSUS KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD (SUPREME COURT)
Supreme Court: Where the sale deed requires registration, ownership does not pass until the deed is registered, even if possession is transferred, and consideration is paid without such registration. Public auction cannot be set aside until there is any material irregularity and/or illegality committed in holding the auction or if such auction was vitiated by any fraud… Read More ...
Buckeye Trust v. PCIT (ITAT Bangalore)
Bangalore Tribunal : S. 56 : Income from other sources-Discretionary trust-Property-Interest from partnership firm and shares from unlisted company-Trust for the benefit of relatives of settler-Power with the trustees to add any persons or class of persons or charity as beneficiaries- Revision order on the ground that the Trust is not wholly benefit of beneficiaries-Amount of Rs. 669… Read More ...
DWARIKA PRASAD vs PRITHVI RAJ SINGH (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: It is well settled that Courts should not shut out cases on mere technicalities but rather afford opportunity to both sides and thrash out the matter on merits. Further, we cannot let the party suffer due to negligent or fault committed by their counsel. This principle has been enunciated by the Supreme court in the… Read More ...
Infantry Security and Facilities through, proprietor Tukaram M. Surayawanshi v. ITO (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Review-Statutory dues like the Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance -Payments were made before due date of filing of return-Allowed by the Tribunal-Corporation-Not deposited before due date of respective Acts-Delay of 92 days in filing miscellaneous application-Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application of the Revenue of… Read More ...
Rupesh Kantilal Savla v. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-On money -Six assessment years-Date of search-Date of receipt of seized material-Relevant assessment year -Search was conducted prior to the Finance Act , 2017-Search was conducted before the Finance Act, 2017, power to assess block period of ten years could not be attracted in case of a search… Read More ...
Mark Studio India Private Limited vs Income Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court: (i) The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) does have ‘exclusive powers’ to issue notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Both the JAO and the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)will have concurrent powers for ‘assessment, re-assessment and re-computation’ of the particular income in a faceless manner. (ii) The Directorate of IT (Systems) shall have… Read More ...
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX INTN’L vs. WESTERN UNION FINANCIAL SERVICES INC (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court: The Liaison Office of the assessee did not constitute a PE in India, there was no DAPE and that the software did not result in the creation of a permanent establishment. (i) On an overall conspectus of the various decisions handed down by this Court as well as the Supreme Court insofar as Fixed Place… Read More ...
The Chamber of Tax Consultants v. Director General of Income-Tax Systems & Ors (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 87A : Rebate of income-tax in case of certain individuals-New tax regime-Tax on income of individuals and Hindu undivided family- Rebate u/s 87A is substantive right which cannot be deprived by procedural changes such as changes in the utility software made by the department-The Court has directed the CBDT to extend the date of… Read More ...