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
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 ...
ACIT v. Jay Bharat Mehta (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 68 : Cash credits-Sale of shares-Explained the nature and source-Investment and the transaction was part of a larger acquisition by KKR Group-Order of CIT(A) deleting the addition is affirmed. [S. 115BBE, 133(6)] Assessee sold 22,62,512 equity shares of J.B. Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (JBCPL) to Tau Investment Holdings Pte. Ltd. for ₹168.55 crore. He… Read More ...
Laxminath Investment & Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 127 : Power to transfer cases-Transferring the case from the Jurisdictional officer in Mumbai to the counterpart in New Delhi-No agreement between the Principal Commissioners of Mumbai and Delhi for the proposal of such a transfer -Compliance of natural justice-Transaction with specific group-Coordinated and centralised investigation -Transfer is valid-Writ petition is dismissed. [S. 127(2),… Read More ...
PCIT v. Tata Industries Ltd (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Upfront fees and brokerage fees–Non -convertible debentures – Year of allowability –If the tax rate is uniform in two years then, the deduction whether claimed by the assessee in the year one or two is of no consequence to the revenue- The revenue expenditure is to be allowed in the year… Read More ...
PCIT v. Pravin U. Parmar (Jain) (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Order of Tribunal affirming the 7% of GP rate is affirmed-No substantial question of law. [S. 143(3), 260A] The ITAT has restricted the addition only to the extent of 7 % of GP in respect of alleged bogus purchases. On appeal by the Revenue the dismissing the appeal the Court… Read More ...
C.C. Dangi & Associates v. UOI (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice Principle of Natural Justice-Non-Application of Mind by Authorities-Role of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT)-Approval under Section 151-Strictures-Interplay Between CGST Act and Income Tax Act-Costs and Accountability of Tax Authorities-The High Court held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was invalid as… Read More ...
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 ...