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 If the penalty notice does not strike off the irrelevant portion viz. concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, the notice is bad in law and the penalty is liable to be deleted. The ITAT has considered the judgement of the Bombay High Court in the case of Veena Estate (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [2024] 158 taxmann.com… Read More ...
The ITAT Mumbai has held that If the AO proceeds with the assessment by issuing notices u/s 142(1) & 143(2) of the IT Act before providing the ‘recorded reasons’ and before disposing of assessee’s objections to the ‘recorded reasons’, the same is a violation of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd.… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 12AB : Procedure for fresh registration-Registration of charitable trust-Renewal-Absence of irrevocability clause / dissolution clause in trust deed-Rejection of Form No. 10AB on ground that trust deed did not contain express clause that trust was irrevocable and that answering “Yes” in Row 6 amounted to furnishing false / incorrect information-Not justified-Public charitable trust registered… Read More ...
The NAGPUR TRIBUNAL has held that S. 69 : Unexplained investment – Reassessment – Purchase of property – AIR information – Addition for investment of Rs. 10 lakh deleted as documentary evidence showed payment related to relevant year – Addition of Rs. 40.95 lakh for property purchase deleted as assessee explained source through sale deed, housing loan of Rs. 20 lakh… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 149 : Reassessment-Time limit for notice-Notice issued beyond three years- Escaped income must be represented in the form of an asset under pre-amended section 149(1)(b) as substituted by Finance Act, 2021-Alleged bogus purchases are revenue items and not “asset”- Reopening invalid-Assessment quashed-Consequential addition deleted. [S. 144, 143(2), 142(1), 147, 148, 149(1)(b)] The assessee, a… Read More ...
The INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT has held that Where the assessee explained cash deposits during the demonetisation period by furnishing supporting evidences such as agricultural income records, sales bills of agricultural produce, Form 7/12 land extracts, cash book and bank withdrawal details, the primary onus of explaining the source stood discharged. The Tribunal held that such evidences cannot be rejected merely as “self-serving… Read More ...
The ITAT Mumbai bench has held that When in an earlier year, the argument of the Revenue that a particular scrip/ stock was 'penny stock', was rejected by the ITAT in the case of the assessee itself, then, principles of judicial consistency and Doctrine of Binding Precedents, would warrant the same view to be taken in a subsequent year as well. Read More ...
The ITAT Pune Bench has held that Once the claim of creation of Goodwill as a result of merger and the depreciation charged thereon in the first year, i.e. F.Y. 2016-17 has been accepted by the AO, then during the subsequent year, there is opening balance of written down value. Once that is so, and the claim for depreciation in the subsequent… Read More ...
The ITAT Mumbai has held that Failure to supply the material on the basis of which addition is made and failure to provide opportunity of cross examination despite the same being sought by the assessee, is violative of principles of natural justice. Additions made were thus liable to be deleted. Read More ...