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

Raunaq Prakash Jain v. ITO (ITAT Jodhpur)

The Jodhpur Tribunal has held that S. 45 : Capital gains-Crypto currency-Bitcoin-Virtual Digital Asset-Held for more than 3 years (Thirty six months)-Property of any kind-Taxable as capital gains-Not as income from other sources-Entitle to claim exemption under Section 54F of the Act-Finance Act, 2022 w.e.f. 01.04.2022, Section 2(47A) had been inserted thereby Virtual Digital Asset meaning was assigned and that included… Read More ...

Raunaq Prakash Jain vs. Income Tax Officer (ITAT Jodhpur)

The ITAT Jodhpur has held that Cryptocurrencies are capital assets and any profits made on their sale prior to the amendments to sections 2(14) and 2(47A) by the Finance Act 2022 should be considered capital gains and taxed accordingly (1) Plain natural definition of ‘property’ as is given in the Act property ofany kind held by an assessee, whether or not… Read More ...

ACIT v. Rohit Krishna (ITAT Mumbai)

The Mumbai Tribunal has held that Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015) S. 43 : Penalty for failure to furnish return of income an information or furnish inaugurate particulars of an asset (Including financial interest in any entity) outside India-Failure to report foreign assets in the return- Employees Stock option- Tax is deducted at… Read More ...

ACIT vs Ranu Vohra (ITAT Mumbai)

The ITAT Mumbai has held that Short term capital loss from sale of shares after Bonus cannot be prevented from being set off against the long term capital gain by alleging adoption of colorable device Mindtree Ltd. announced bonus shares at the ratio of 1:1. As a result of issue of bonus shares, the price of share reduced almost to half… Read More ...

DCIT vs. Lalita Devi Agarwal (ITAT Mumbai)

The ITAT Mumbai has held that The assessee received the impugned gift from her son, who is a NRI. The details of the bank transfer were submitted to the AO, and these documents clearly established that the donor had sufficient funds to make the gift. With respect to the SEBI guidelines, the AR submitted that the SEBI order imposing the alleged… Read More ...

VEERMATA JIJABAI TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

The INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI has held that One of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas (DTVSV) Scheme’s key conditions is that the assessee must withdraw all pending appeals before any appellate forum, signifying their intention to resolve the matter through this settlement mechanism. In this case, the assessee opted for the DTVSV scheme, prompting the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to dismiss… Read More ...

ACIT v. Ranu Vohra (ITAT Mumbai)

The Mumbai ITAT has held that If an assessee arranges his/ her affairs within the legal framework and through legitimate means to reduce its tax liability, the Assessing Officer cannot prevent him/ her from doing so and when there is no evidence to doubt the genuineness of the transactions entered into by the assessee, set off of loss on such transactions… Read More ...

ITO v. Reliable Builders and Developers (ITAT Mumbai)

The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 145 : Method of accounting-Project completion method-The Assessing Officer is not justified in rejecting the project completion method and estimating the income on percentage completion method- No addition can be made merely on the basis of sales shown in the GST return and Income tax return when the assessee is able to reconcile the… Read More ...

Manish Manohardas v. ITO (IT) (ITAT Mumbai)

The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 270A : Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income- Penalty notice was only regarding underreporting of income-Penalty levied u for misreporting of income and under reporting-Not specifying the specific charge-Salary received is shown in the return -Penalty of Rs. 44,90,048/- levied under section 270A(8) of the Act is deleted. [S. 139(9), 192, 270A(8), 270A(9)(e),… Read More ...

Prakash Udyog Limited vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

The ITAT MUMBAI has held that the Hon. ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance u/s. 14A cannot be made where the exempt income is earned in the current year on investments made in earlier years, with no fresh investments in the current year. Additionally, interest paid on an overdraft facility for business purposes cannot be disallowed under Rule 8D Read More ...