Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


M. S. Ananthamurthy v. J. Manjula [2025] 172 taxmann.com 7 (SC)

The Power of Attorney Act , 1882

S. 2: Execution of power- of- attorney -General power of attorney – Transfer – Power of attorney and agreement to sell were not registered- In absence of registration under section 17(1)(b) of Registration Act, it would not be open for holder of power of attorney (POA ) to content that she had a valid right, title and interest in immovable property to execute registered sale deed in favour of appellant- Sale deed executed by General Power of attorney (POA) holder after death of original owner was invalid. [ S. 1A , Indian Contract Act , 1872, 201, 202 , Indian Income -tax Act , 1961 , 2(47) , Indian Registration Act ,1908, 17(1))(b) , 49, , Limitation Act , 1963 , Article . 58 , 65, Transfer of Property Act , 1882 , S.40,53A, 54, 55 , Specific Relief Act ,1877, ]

Bankimbhai Natverbhai Patel v. ITO (Ahd.)(Trib.)(UR)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Deemed addition- Addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b)- Penalty is deleted. [S. 56(2)(vii)(b)]

Shri Shivaji Dattatray Sonawane v. ITO (Pune)(Trib) (UR)

S. 270A : Penalty for under -reporting and misreporting of income – Not specifying the limb – Levy of penalty is not valid . [ S.270A(8) 270A(9) ]

Shri Rajender Agarwal v. ACIT (Delhi)( Trib)(UR)

S. 143(3): Assessment – Validity – Addition on account of bogus LTCG – Addition based on some incriminating material found in a search at premises of third parties- Assessment order should have been framed as per provisions of section 153C- assessment order passed under section 143(3) is set aside being bad in law. [ S. 132, 143(1), 153A , 153C ]

Sureshchandra Seksaria HUF v. ITO (Mum) ( Trib.)(UR)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments – investment in the books of account – Evidences to prove genuineness of the purchase- Addition is deleted .[ S. 143(3), 145 ]

ITO v. Gitika Commodities Pvt. Ltd. ( Kol)(Trib) (UR)

S. 68. : Cash credits – Receipt of share capital/premium – Summons issued to investors returned unserved- Addition cannot be made under section 68 for the mere reason that summons issued to investors were returned unserved . [ S. 131 , 133(6)]

ITO v. Alpa Rajendra Jain (Mum) (Trib)(UR)

S. 68: Cash credits – long term capital gain –Penny stock – Sale consideration cannot be assessed as un explained cash credits .[ S.45 ]

Ravinder Kumar v. ITO (Delhi)(Trib.) (UR)

S. 54B : Capital gains – Land used for agricultural purposes – Land purchased in name of Assessee’s wife- The AO is directed to allow the exemption. [ S. 45 ]

Avinash Kumar Ojha v. ITO (Mum.) (Trib.)(UR)

S. 40A(3) : Expenses or payments not deductible – Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits – The tax authorities are not justified in invoking the provisions of S. .40A(3) of the Act without verifying the relevant facts.

Sri Vetri Vinayagar Educational Trust v. ITO (Chennai )( Trib) (UR)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Charitable trust – Exemption under section 11 – Allowability – Audit Report in Form No. 10B not filed along with return- AO is directed to verify the Form No. 10B filed by the assessee and allow the claim of exemption under section 11. [ Form No 10B ]