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 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 ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 143(1) : Assessment-Intimation-Scrutiny assessment- Adjustment made under section 143(1) prior to completion of scrutiny assessment under section 143(3)-Assessee did not file appeal against intimation under section 143(1) but challenged identical addition in appeal against assessment order under section 143(3)-Intimation under section 143(1) merges with subsequent scrutiny assessment order-CIT(A) justified in entertaining assessee's ground and… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Capitalisation in books-Operational expenditure capitalised under CWIP in books but claimed as revenue expenditure for tax purposes-Assessee's telecom business already commenced and was operational-Expenditure incurred towards interconnect charges, employee cost, professional fees, call-centre expenses, power and fuel, repairs and maintenance, network costs, selling and distribution expenses, customer service, etc.-No specific capital… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Royalty-Fees for technical services-Payments to foreign telecom operators-Voice termination, bandwidth and operation and maintenance services-Services rendered through sophisticated network and technology but assessee neither acquired equipment nor right to use any equipment/process-No technical knowledge or know-how made available-Payments not royalty or fees for technical services under applicable DTAAs-Recipients… Read More ...
The INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT has held that A search u/s 132 was conducted on 23.01.2018 at the premises of Shri Pravin Jivrajbhai Tarpara, during which loose papers said to pertain to the assessee were seized. The searched person's own assessment u/s 153A was completed on 07.06.2021, but the satisfaction note for assuming jurisdiction over the assessee was recorded only on 23.11.2022 —… Read More ...
The ITAT Mumbai has held that Capital gains, if any, arising out of the redevelopment transaction arising can be taxed in the hands of the individual members and not the cooperative housing society, even if the development agreement is entered into by the society. The development agreement is entered into by the society only in a representative capacity on behalf of… Read More ...