Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Vijay Maneklal Banushali v. ITO ( Mum)( Trib)(www.itatonline .org

S. 68 : Cash credits – Purchase and sales through book entries with sub -broker -Commodity exchange – Futures Speculative transactions- Forward market commission-Accommodate bogus loss- Transaction with sub -broker – Addition is deleted .

Shri Panchmurti Education Society v. ITO ( Nag )( Trib) www.itatonline .org .

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Belated filing of return – Denial of exemption is not justified- Addition made under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act is deleted – Directed to accept the returned income- Circular of CBDT is binding on Revenue .[ S. 12,12A(1)(b),119, 139(1),139(4) ,143(1)(a)(ii)]

Bharat Education Society v. UOI ( Bom( HC) www.itatonline .org

S. 119 : Central Board of Direct Taxes- Circular – Condonation of delay of 1585 days – Revised return – Principle of natural justice -No personal hearing was granted – In the absence of any provision to the contrary, such principles should be read into the unoccupied interstices of a statute- Order of rejection is set aside and directed to pass the order after granting the personal hearing . [ S.119(2)(b), 139(5) Art. 226 ]

Vijay Channabasav Suttatti v. ACIT [2024] 166 taxmann.com 384 (Bom)( HC) Editorial : SLP of assessee is dismissed , Vijay Channabasav Suttatti v. ACIT (2024) 301 Taxman 236 (SC)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record – Review of order is not permitted – Writ petition is dismissed . [ Art. 226 ]

Dev Technofab Ltd v. Dy.CIT ( [2024] 166 taxmann.com 514 (Delhi)( HC) Editorial : SLP of Revenue is dismissed , Dev Technofab Ltd. v. DCIT, [2024]301 Taxman 72 (SC)

S. 153C : Assessment – Income of any other person – Search and seizure – Satisfaction note pertained to non-searched entity and material which was alluded to pertained to assessment year 2019-20 only- Notice pertaining to AYs 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2020-21 is quashed and set aside. [S. 132 , Art. 226 ]

AIM Fincon (P) Ltd v. ACIT( 2024) 166 taxmann.com 680 ( Guj)( HC) . Editorial : SLP of Revenue is dismissed for failure to explain the delay of 489 days in filing of SLP , ACIT v. AIM Fincon (P.) Ltd. (2024) 301 Taxman 169 (SC)

S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years-Accommodation entries – Sale of shares – All material with respect to transaction at time of original assessment – Assessing Officer was satisfied with the explanation- Change of opinion – Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed . [ S. 68, 132, 148 , Art. 226 ]

Vipul Kumar Patel v. UOI [2024] 167 taxmann.com 140 (Telangana) ( HC) Editorial: SLP of Revenue is dismissed, as infructuous as subsequent assessments have been made .PDIT (Inv) v. Vipul Kumar Patel (2024) 301 Taxman 408 (SC)

S. 132: Search and Seizure –Strictures – Warrant issued – Search premises left blank – Witnesses from different place – Panchnama – Search invalid – Documents to conduct search fabricated- An income tax inspection and/ or investigation would be permissible only in respect of a past event but not for possible future contingencies- Department is directed to refund cash of Rs.5.00 crores to assessee with interest at 12% p.a. along with costs of Rs.20,000. [ S.132A, 132B, Art. 14, 226 , 300A ]

Ramesh Harbibhau Gawli v.ITO [2024] 167 taxmann.com 323( Bom)( HC) Editorial : SLP of assesse is dismissed , Ramesh Harbibhau Gawli v. ITO (2024) 301 Taxman 407 (SC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Civil contractor – Widening and strengthening of existing road – Purchase of marble for construction of High way Authority – Parties whose name cheques were alleged to be issued had deposed on oath that they had neither encashed cheque nor received amount – Order of Tribunal affirming the disallowance is affirmed .[ S.260A ]

Nammalvar Lingusamy v. ACIT (2024)110 ITR 31 (SN) (Chennai)(Trib)

S. 271D : Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Receipt of consideration for sale of immovable property in cash-Registered document duly signed by vendor and purchaser showing receipt in cash-Wrong entry-Adjustment thorough a journal entry-Failure to modify in the document-Levy of penalty is affirmed.[S. 269SS, 274]

Pradipbhai Dayabhai Aghara v ITO (2024)110 ITR 14 (Trib) (SN)(Rajkot)(Trib)

S. 271B : Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited-Not maintaining the books of account-Not liable for penalty for failure to get accounts audited.[S.44AA, 44AB, 139(1),148, 271A]