Judgements Uploaded By Users In Category: Income-Tax Act
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
The ITAT Mumbai has held that A revised return filed by an assessee, to correct the original return which treated loss on F&O transactions as speculative loss, could not be rejected on the ground of 'change of opinion'. The doctrine of 'change of opinion' relied upon by the AO was relevant in the context of reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 of… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 45 : Capital gains-Co-operative housing society-Redevelopment of property-Development Agreement entered into by society on behalf of its members-Society continued to be owner of land-No consideration received by society-Developer entered into Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements with individual members- Society merely acted as representative of members-Capital gains arising from redevelopment transaction, if any, taxable in hands… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of orders-Assessment-Addition under section 69-Cost imposed Rs. 1 lakh-Redevelopment of property-Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements entered into with existing tenants -Assessee contending that PAAA’s were entered into to allot area to existing tenants in lieu of their existing area, free of cost -Assessment completed under section 143(3) read with section 144B by… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 S. 154B(29) : Co-operative societies-Recovery of dues-Penalty for encroachment of common space-Parking of bicycle in staircase- Society had not adopted new Model Bye-laws containing Bye-law 169(a) authorising levy of penalty-Recovery certificate issued for ₹15.45 lakh for alleged parking of bicycle for 11 years-Levy of penalty retrospectively without any contemporaneous objection… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 68 : Cash credits-Share capital and share premium-Identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of subscriber established- Assessee issued 22,50,000 equity shares of face value ₹10 at ₹50 per share, including premium of ₹40-Merely because shares were issued at a high premium, addition under section 68 could not be made- Second proviso to section 68 inserted w.e.f.… Read More ...
The PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT has held that S. 147A : Reassessment-Face less Assessment-Assessing Officer for the purposes of sections 148, 148A-Constitutional validity-Retrospective amendment-Section 147A introduced with retrospective effect from 1-4-2021 to provide that Assessing Officer for purposes of sections 148 and 148A would mean an Assessing Officer other than National Faceless Assessment Centre/assessment unit-Amendment seeking to neutralise judgments of constitutional Courts holding… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Accommodation entries-Revision under section 263 could not be exercised on the basis of a void reassessment order-Reassessment-Sanction-Jurisdictional condition-Assessment Year 2017-18-Notice under section 148 issued on 29-07-2022, beyond three years from end of relevant assessment year-Approval obtained from Principal Commissioner under section 151(i), whereas section 151(ii) required approval… Read More ...
The NAGPUR TRIBUNAL has held that S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Non-performing assets-Loss on sale of NPAs-Co-operative bank-Assessment completed under section 143(3) after examination of relevant details-AO having adopted a possible view-Loss on sale of NPAs held allowable as business loss by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case-PCIT could not invoke revision merely for directing fresh enquiry… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 195 : Deduction of tax at source-Non-resident-Purchase of trademark-Assessee acquired absolute ownership of trademark “Jamawar” from a non-resident for lump-sum consideration-Payment made for outright purchase of a capital asset and not for use of trademark - Consideration for transfer of ownership of trademark taxable, if at all, under the head “Capital gains” and not… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 54F : Capital gains-Investment in a residential house-Amalgamation of two adjacent flats-Assessee purchased one flat in his own name and another jointly in the names of his wife and son-Subsequently, two flats amalgamated into one composite residential unit under a registered supplementary agreement-Composite flat having a single entry and kitchen-Assessee having made substantial investment… Read More ...