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

Pravir Polymers Private Ltd. v. ITO (Bombay High Court)

The Bombay High Court has held that S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Cash credits-Accommodation entries-Additional evidence - Violation of Rule 46A by CIT(A)-Failure to produce the parties– Assessing Officer should exercise his powers under section 131 of the Act–Assessee cannot be compelled to produce the parties–Order of Tribunal rejecting the miscellaneous application and reversing the order of… Read More ...

DCIT v. Abdulsattar Suleman (ITAT Mumbai)

The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 45(3) : Capital gains - Transfer of capital asset to firm –Land – Stock in trade- Transferring the assets at nil value – Revaluation by the Firm and crediting the accounts of the partners in latter years – Addition cannot be made in the hands of the partners in the year of revaluation and… Read More ...

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR (Supreme Court)

The Supreme Court has held that RECOMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961: The market value of the power supplied by the State Electricity Board to the industrial consumers should be construed to be the market value of electricity. It should not be compared with the rate of power sold to or supplied to the… Read More ...

M/s. Best Ready Mix Concrete vs. PCIT (Kerala High Court)

The High Court of Kerala has held that W.P. (C) No. 37648 of 2023 Facts of the case Writ petition was filed challenging the order passed by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under section 119(2)(b) of Income-tax Act, 1961 wherein the application of the assessee for condonation of delay of one day in filing return of income for A.Y. 2021-22 was rejected.… Read More ...

Vodafone Idea Limited vs. Central Processing Centre (Bombay High Court)

The Bombay High Court has held that 24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the assessment order dated 31st August 2023 passed by FAO two years after the DRP directions, is time barred and cannot be sustained. Consequently, the ROI as filed has to be accepted. Petitioner is entitled to receive the refund together with… Read More ...

All India Federation of Tax Practitioners v. UOI (Delhi High Court)

The Delhi High Court has held that S. 250 : Appeals-Commissioner of (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)-Pendency of appeals-Delay in disposal of appeals-Honourable court has directed the government to take appropriate measures to fill up all vacant posts and also increase the sanctioned strength of Commissioner (Appeals) so as to achieve the target at least 570 of such posts. [S. 246, 250(6A),… Read More ...

Naresh Manakchand Jain v. The Registrar, ITAT (Bombay High Court)

The Bombay High Court has held that S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal- Powers-Ex -parte order-Search- Alleged Accommodation entry provider-32,000+ beneficiaries- Shell companies-Alleged Money Laundering-Direction issued by the Tribunal to AO to intimate / report to SEBI, ED, MCA and ROC regarding details of money laundering activities-Directed the Assessing officer to share information about all beneficiaries within 90 days-Ex-parte order was quashed-Direction of… Read More ...

Hasmukh Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (Bombay High Court)

The Bombay High Court has held that S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice- Information–Internal Audit objection- Not permissible-Information not based on the objection raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India-Reassessment impermissible-Change of opinion-Audit objection raised by CAG a view deviating from that which was taken in the course of original assessment order is change of… Read More ...

Yogesh Bhomraj Porwal vs. PCIT (ITAT Pune)

The G D Padmahshali has held that Not all legal heirs could be legal representative nor all legal representative are legal heirs. Right to file appeal by virtue of 159(3) is available to only legal representative who qualify u/s 2(29) of IT Act. Read More ...

AO vs. Nestle SA- MFN Clause (Supreme Court)

The Supreme Court has held that In the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the matter of AO Vs Nestle SA [2023 INSC 928], one of the issues which came up for consideration before Their Lordships was, to borrow their own words, "whether MFN clause is to be given effect to automatically or if it is to come into effect after a… Read More ...