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 Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT has held that once the assessee discharged its onus by furnishing confirmations, PAN, ITRs, bank statements, and proof of repayment within the same year, reliance by AO/CIT(A) solely on the statement of an entry operator was unsustainable—particularly when the statement was retracted and cross examination was denied. 📂 Facts • Assessee received unsecured loans of ₹50 lakh from… Read More ...
The Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT has held that 📌 Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) unsustainable when basis of levy altered — ITAT Mumbai deletes penalty on estimated addition. ________________________________________ 📰 Compliance Bulletin Case: Amish Anantrai Modi vs DCIT [I.T.A No.6281/Mum/2025] Forum: Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai Issue: Validity of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) when the foundation of addition changes ⚖️ Facts • Addition made u/s 68 on… Read More ...
The Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT has held that Reopening quashed as AO did not disposed objection against reopening filed by the assessee. Background: • The assessee’s original assessment (AY 2013-14) was framed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C in 2016, with additions for alleged bogus LTCG. • That assessment was quashed by ITAT in 2021. • Subsequently, the AO issued a notice under section… Read More ...
The Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT has held that ⚖️ Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT held that when evidence of inflated purchases have been found during the search at assessee’s premises which has been extrapolated and addition has been made in all preceding years and restricted to certain % by appellate authorities then penalty u/s 271(1)(c) or 270A of the Act is not leviable on such… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Addition for alleged “on-money” paid for purchase of jewellery solely on the basis of statement of third party and documents found in search of another person, without any incriminating material found in assessee’s search and without corroboration, is unsustainable-Assessee cannot be asked to prove a negative-Addition cannot be made merely on… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 263 : Commissioner - Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Charitable trust-Limited scrutiny-Payments to specified persons u/s. 13(3)-AO having made detailed enquiries and accepted explanation, PCIT cannot set aside assessment merely for “further verification” without himself recording how order is erroneous-Inadequate enquiry is not enough-PCIT must establish error by own enquiry-Revision quashed. [S. 12A, 13(3),… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-After the expiry of four years-Sanction u/s. 151 was issued by CIT(E) instead of joint Commissioner-Wrong authority-Effect of TOLA-Relying on Rajeev Bansal order reassessment notice and consequential order was quashed. [S. 147, 148, 151(2), TOLA, 2020, Art. 226] On writ against the reassessment order , allowing the petition… Read More ...
The ITAT, Mumbai has held that Merely because the capital account balance in the immediately preceding year was not filled while filing the income tax return on account of a clerical error, the capital account balance reported for the year under consideration while filing the return of income cannot be automatically added as income of the year under consideration, especially when… Read More ...
The ITAT Rajkot has held that Assessee applied for regular registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. But due to oversight, the trustees did not notice the receipt of mail related to proceedings under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii). Hence the assessee was not able to file response for the notice within specified time limit. Hence, the application for regular registration under section 12A… Read More ...
The ITAT Hyderabad has held that Penalty u/s 270A(9) cannot be levied if income is offered under the wrong head of 'Capital Gains' instead of 'Other sources' (i) For levy of penalty under section 270A(9) of the Act, the case of the assessee must fall under one of the clauses (a) to (f) of the said sub-section. In the present case,… Read More ...