Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Manoj Devshichhadva v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.) [www.itatonline.org]

S.56: Income from other sources – Immovable property – Redevelopment agreement – Permanent alternate accommodation allotted in lieu of surrender of tenancy rights – Redevelopment project incomplete and possession of alternate premises not handed over – Mere execution and registration of redevelopment agreement did not amount to receipt of immovable property – Assessee acquired only a contractual right to receive flat in future – Transaction supported by valuable consideration in the form of surrender of tenancy rights and could not be regarded as receipt of property without consideration – Section 56(2)(x) not applicable – Addition deleted.[ S. 56(2)(x) ]

Shyamsunder Bansidhar Reengusia v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.) [www.itatonline.org]

S.56: Income from other sources – Purchase of immovable property below stamp duty value – Difference between actual consideration and stamp duty value – Assessee specifically disputed stamp duty valuation and requested reference to DVO – Property jointly purchased by assessee and his wife in specified shares – CIT(A) failed to refer valuation to DVO and confirmed entire difference in assessee’s hands merely because wife’s case had not been assessed – Entire difference could not be taxed in hands of assessee ignoring his specific ownership share – Matter restored to AO for reference to DVO and determination of taxable difference – Assessee’s appeal allowed for statistical purposes. [S. 50C(2)(x)(b)]

Ravi Dilip Waghela v. ITO Mum.)(Trib.) [www.itatonline.org]

S.148: Reassessment – Validity of notice – Service of notice – Notice under section 148 affixed at an unrelated locked premises without establishing any connection of assessee with the premises – Departmental record itself indicated that assessee did not reside at the said address – Subsequent notices also returned with endorsement “LEFT” – Assessee objected to non-service before completion of assessment – Deemed service under section 292BB not applicable – Reassessment proceedings without valid service of jurisdictional notice under section 148 were invalid and assessment was quashed – Additions under sections 69C and 68 consequently deleted. [S. 68, 69C, 131, 144, 147, 282, 292BB, Rule 127.]

PCIT v. Pravesh Kumar Jaiswal (Cal.)(HC) [www.itatonline.org]

S. 69C: Unexplained expenditure -Unexplained expenditure – Bogus purchases – Sales accepted and books of account not rejected under section 145(3) –Furnished books of account, purchase invoices, payment details through banking channels and other supporting evidence – Addition based merely on non-response of suppliers to notices under section 133(6) and cancellation of GST registrations – Once corresponding sales were accepted, purchases could not be disbelieved or disallowed in entirety – Finding of Tribunal based on appreciation of evidence was a finding of fact – No substantial question of law arose – Revenue’s appeal dismissed. [S. 69A, 69C, 115BBE, 133(6), 145(3), 260A.]

Bank of India v. DCIT [2025] 175 taxmann.com 905 (Bom) (HC)

Interest-tax Act, 1974

S. 2(7) : Interest-Subsidy received from RBI-Export Credit-Subsidy Scheme-Not interest-Not chargeable to tax. [S. 4, 260A, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934(2 of 1934) S.42(IB)]

Umesh Navnitlal Shah HUF v. ITO [2025] 170 taxmann.com 674/2026] 489 ITR 537  (Bom.)(HC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020
S. 3: Amount payable by declarant-Belated amendment of appeal memo after filing declaration under DTVSV Scheme was inadmissible-Amount payable by declarant-Case was treated as non-search case, amount payable under DTVSV Scheme was to be calculated at 100 per cent and not 125 per cent. [S.10(38), 45 68, 132, 271(1)(c), CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2020, Art. 226]

PCIT v. Aditi Avinash Athavankar [2025] 180 taxmann.com 476 (Bom)(HC)

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015]
S. 43: Penalty-Failure to furnish in return of income, an information or furnish inaccurate particulars about an asset-Non-disclosure of foreign investment in Schedule FA-Investment held in assessee’s name only for administrative convenience and disclosed by husband-Penalty deleted-Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S.260A]

Pinakin Kantilal Patel v. DCIT [2025] 177 taxmann.com 364 (Bom) (HC)

S. 278B: Offences and prosecutions-Companies-Liability of director-Part-time director-The criminal complaint against assessee was quashed and set aside. [S. 276C(2), 278B(2)]

Shah Rameshchandra Nihalchand & Co. v. S. Bose Commissioner of Tax-13 [2025] 176 taxmann.com 756 / [2026] 490 ITR 518 (Bom)(HC)

S. 278B: Offences and prosecutions-Companies-Offences by firms-Impleadment of partners-Sessions Judge erred in allowing application for impleadment of partners; accordingly, order directing impleadment of partners was set aside. [The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 319.]

CIT (E) v. Maharashtra Academy of Engineering and Educational Research [2025] 180 taxmann.com 439 (Bom)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue dismissed, CIT (E) v. Maharashtra Academy of Engineering and Educational Research, [2025] 181 taxmann.com 288 (SC)

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Failure to record proper satisfaction regarding the applicable limb of the section-Penalty order invalid.[S. 10(23C)(vi)]