Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Dhirajlal Laljibhai Patel v. ACIT (2025) 307 Taxman 530 (Guj.)(HC)

S.147: Reassessment-Amounts of investments not fully disclosed in books of account-Search-Information from public domain-Fishing enquiry-Reassessment notice and order disposing of the objection were quashed. [S.69B, 148, Art. 226]

ACIT v. Tungabhadra Minerals (P.) Ltd. (2025) 307 Taxman 303 (SC) Editorial: Balaji Mines and Minerals (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2024] 163 taxmann.com 37 (Bom HC)

S. 147: Reassessment-Borrowed satisfaction-Underinvesting of export-Justice M.B. Shah Commission’s Report-SLP delay of 411 days-SLP of revenue dismissed on account of delay as well as on merits. [S. 148, Art. 136]

Siddharth Maneklal Patel v. NEAC (2025) 307 Taxman 327 (Guj.)(HC)

144B: Faceless Assessment-Principle of natural justice-Video conference was not provided-Order passed was quashed and set aside-Assessing Officer to pass a fresh de novo order in accordance with law. [Art. 226 ]

Dy. CIT v. Mahamaya Steel Industries Ltd. (2025) 307 Taxman 126 (Chhattisgarh)(HC)

S. 145: Method of accounting-Undisclosed sales-Search-Estimated yield ratio-Low yield-Rejection of books of account not valid-Order of Tribunal deleting the disallowance was affirmed.[S.69A, 132, 145(3), 260A]

Classic Legends Pvt. Ltd. v.Asst. Unit /(2025) 307 Taxman 95 (2026) 484 ITR 550 /348 CTR 323 / 257 DTR 418 (Bom)(HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Non eligible assessee-Assessing Officer cannot pass draft assessment order under section 144C(1)-Draft assessment order, final assessment order and notices of demand and penalty set aside. [S. 92CA(3), 143(3), 144C(15), 156, 270A, 271AAC, Art. 226]

Murliwala Agrotech (P.) Ltd. v. UOI (2025) 307 Taxman 543 (Raj)(HC)

S. 127: Power to transfer cases-Search-Udaipur to Delhi-With implementation of faceless assessment regime, transfer was neither reasonable nor justifiable-Order of transfer was set aside [S. 132, Art.226]

Udit Goyal v. PCIT (2025) 307 Taxman 34 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 119 : Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Return-Delay of 12 days-COVID-19-related constraints-PCIT acts as a quasi-judicial body-Under an obligation to pass a reasoned order-Order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to PCIT for a de novo consideration to decide the application. [S. 119(2)(b),139(4) Art, 226]

VRG Electronics (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 307 Taxman 109 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Form 10-IC-60-day delay-Mistake of accountant-Matter remanded to the file of PCIT for de novo consideration. [S. 115BAA,119(2)(b), 139(1), Form-10-IC, Art. 226]

Balaji Landmarks LLP v. CBDT (2025) 307 Taxman 498 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Return for losses-Inadequate advice by a Chartered Accountant admitted by filing an affidavit-Delay was condoned-Order rejecting the application was set aside. [S.80, 119(2)(b) 139, 153(1B) Art. 226]

Manish Popatbhai Jiwani HUF v. CCIT (2025) 307 Taxman 50 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Carry forward and set off of business losses-Failure to up load the return within the due date of filing of return-Chartered accountant was busy with family function-Application for condonation of delay was rejected by the CCIT-On writ the Court held that Chief Commissioner could not have rejected application as filing of return for claiming benefit under provision of Act was procedural and benefit accrued to assessee could not be taken away on account of technicalities when there was a genuine hardship. The matter was remanded to the Chief Commissioner to pass a fresh order to condone the delay in filing the return. [S. 44B, 72 139, Art. 226]