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 The Department sends automated e-mails and SMSs whenever anything is uploaded on the portal. If the taxpayer is not diligent in checking the portal & no reply to the Show Cause Notice is filed, the department cannot be blamed (i) A perusal of the screenshot shows that the reminder notice was clearly visible on 09th… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 268A : Appeal-Instructions-Circulars-Monetary limits-2 crores-Applicability of revised CBDT monetary limits (Circular No 3 of 2018 dt. 11-7-2028 (2018) 405 ITR 29 (St), Circular 9 of 2024 , dated 17th September, 2024, (2024) 468 ITR 1 (St.)-Exceptions Apply Prospectively -Pending Appeals Covered by revised threshold-Appeal of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 260A] In this case, the… Read More ...
The Chennai Tribunal has held that S. 45(4) : Capital gains-Distribution of capital asset-Dissolution of firm - Introduction of new partner-Amount received by existing partner for sacrificing his profit-sharing ratio-Realignment of share ratio - No transfer of asset - No capital gain taxable on relinquishment of share ratio-Post amendment, 2021, Finance Act, 2021. [S. 2(14), 2(47), 9B, 45] The assessee is… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S: 68 : Cash credits-Unexplained Credit-Conversion of Company to LLP-Capital Account-Accumulated Profits-Capital gains-Mere accounting entry, without actual monetary benefit to the partners, does not constitute payment for alleged Violation of Section 47(xiiib)(f)-Book Entry-No Actual Payment-Burden on AO-Addition is deleted. [S. 45, 47(xxib)(f), 115BBE, Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, S. 56, 57] NICAF LLP is engaged… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 69A : Unexplained Investments-Unexplained Money- Demonetization-Deposit of cash-Business receipts-Recorded in Books –Acceptance of Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) prior to 31.12.2016 is not illegal-Addition is deleted. During assessment, the AO identified substantial cash deposits made during demonetization and sought clarification. The assessee stated the cash, in the form of Specified Bank Notes (SBNs), was received… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 153A : Assessment-Search-Alleged transfer of Development rights-Reassessment based on seized ledger account and third-party statement-No independent inquiry conducted by the AO-No evidence to link the assessee to the transaction-Addition is deleted. [S. 131, 147, 148, 153A, 153C] The assessee has been a dormant firm since 2003 and received a reassessment notice u/s 147 r/w… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Issued notice without disposing of assessee’s objections-Breach of principle of natural justice-Reassessment order was quashed. [S. 147, 153A] The AO failed to dispose of the assessee’s objections before passing the reassessment order. The ITAT observed that when an assessee files objections against a reassessment notice, the AO is required to first address… Read More ...
The INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR has held that Deletion of Arbitrary Addition under Section 69A In the instant case, a 10% ad hoc addition on cash deposits was deleted. The Tribunal held that once the explanation for source of funds is found to be substantially correct, there is no scope for estimated additions under Section 69A. Taxation must rest on evidence, not assumptions.… Read More ...
The INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR has held that 🔹 Reassessment Invalid under Section 148/149(1)(b) In the instant case, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings since the alleged escaped income was below ₹50 lakh. It reaffirmed that the extended time limit under section 149(1)(b) cannot apply unless the threshold is crossed – a welcome interpretation aligning with the Finance Act, 2021 and judicial precedents… Read More ...
The Chennai Tribunal has held that S. 6(1) : Residence in India-Individual -Stayed more than 60 days in each year-More than 365 days in India for a period or periods amounting to all to 365 days or more-More than 183 days for AY. 2013 -14 & 2014-15-Control and management office is located in Chennai , India-Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) data… Read More ...