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 Delhi High Court has held that DHC order dated: 18-05-2022 Hon’ble Delhi High Court quashed Assessment Order, Notice of demand and Penalty notice passed on 23-05-2021 during COVID-19 where show cause notice and draft assessment order were issued during lockdown and the assessee could not file any reply. The court further was of the view that filing of earlier replies was… Read More ...
The Mumbai ITAT has held that S.37(1): Business expenditure – Referral commission paid to doctors – Violation of the professional conduct- Not allowable as deduction. [Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations 2002, R. 6.8. 1(d)] The assessee is a company engaged in the business of ‘extraction, collection, preservation and banking of stem cells ‘mainly from dental pulp. The… Read More ...
The Ahmedabad ITAT has held that The AO cannot her self make TP addition case is to be referred to TPO in view of madnatory direction of CBDT Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that Section 147 – Reopening beyond four years – Reopening done to tax deemed rental income relying on Delhi High Court decision in CIT vs. Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Company Ltd (2013) 354 ITR 180 – Held reopening is bad in law as all primary facts disclosed during original assessment proceedings-Recorded reasons do not state… Read More ...
The Delhi High Court has held that S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Order passed without considering the replies of the assessee-Assessed income was Rs. 10,07,05,88,04,543) Rupees One lakh seven hundred and five crores eighty lakhs four thousand five hundred and forty -three only)-Information to suggest-arbitrary, cryptic and without application of mind-not considering the response of the Assessee-Mechanical… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 90 : Double taxation relief-Long term capital gains-Transfer of shares-Beneficial Owner-cannot be assumed or inferred-AO to decide whether the concept of “beneficial owner” is inbuilt in the scheme of Article 13-Matter remanded-DTAA-India-Mauritius. [S. 143(3), 154, Art. 10, 11, 13(4)] Assessing Officer held that the income of Rs. 904.98 crores earned by the assessee is… Read More ...
The Income Tax Appelate Tribunal Delhi, Bench "C", New Delhi has held that That the ‘return of income’ under section 148 can’t be treated as non-est even if filed beyond the time period specified in the notice under section 148. Because the AO has passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act and not u/s 144 of the Act. The AO has proceeded with the return filed in… Read More ...
The MADRAS HIGH COURT has held that The intention of the parliament enacting the DTVSVS being to bring a closure of disputes in respect of tax arrears the PCIT is wrong in initiating proceedings under Section 263 after the assessee filed Form-4. It would be a different situation if the assessee had not accepted with the issue of Form 3. Read More ...
The Delhi High Court has held that Delhi high court coming down heavily on income tax deptt for passing general /template orders u/s 148A(d) (copy of order marked to cbdt for necessary action) and inter alia held SIGNIFICANCE OF ISSUANCE OF A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AT A STAGE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A REASSESSMENT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT HAS… Read More ...
The Delhi High Court has held that Divya Capital One Pvt ltd Vs ACIT Delhi(Delhi High Court) Date-12th May 2022 Sub- Order passed u/s 148A(d) without considering the submissions- effect of. Relevance of GKN Driveshaft in the context of new law. The delhi high court in this case was considering a WP against an order which was passed u/s 148A(d) where the… Read More ...