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

M/s. Cognizant Technology-Solutions India Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Chennai)

The ITAT Chennai has held that The consideration paid by the assessee to its shareholders for purchase of its own shares was liable to tax as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(d) of the Act, and alternatively, u/s.2(22)(a) of the Act, and consequently, the assessee company was liable for payment of Dividend Distribution Tax (in short “DDT") u/s.115-O of the Act. The consideration paid… Read More ...

Siemens Financial Services Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Bombay High Court)

The Bombay High Court has held that In this case, the approval/sanction for order under Section 148A(d) of the Act has been granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-8. The entire controversy is, therefore, (a) whether the Principal Commissioner was the specified authority, who could have granted the approval / sanction ?, (b) if not, the effect thereof? The impugned notice… Read More ...

Bridge India Fund, New Delhi v. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Procedure for filing objections-Natural justice-Form No 35A signed by the Advocate-Authorised Representative is not entitle to verify and sig the Form No 35A-Dismissal of objection by DRP without giving an opportunity to rectify the defects is violation of principle of natural justice - The Tribunal directed the Assessee… Read More ...

SECUNDRABAD CLUB VS. C.I.T.-V (Supreme Court)

The Supreme Court has held that (i) The Order of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Cawnpore Club Ltd., Kanpur (2004) 140 Taxman 378 (SC) cannot be treated as a precedent within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution of India as the said order does not declare any law and the appeals filed by the… Read More ...

SANJAY VRAJLAL KOTHARI V ITO 25(2)(3), MUMBAI (ITAT Mumbai)

The ITAT MUMBAI has held that However, we find that the assessing officer has incorrectly added the whole amount of deposit found in the impugned bank account which was not pertained to the assessment year under consideration. Further as per the submission of the assessee there are some amount deposited in the bank account on account of dividend, bank interest and… Read More ...

NITIN NEMA VS ITO WARD 1(1) JABALPUR & ORS (Madhya Pradesh High Court)

The M P HIGH COURT JABALPUR BENCH has held that The grounds raised by learned counsel for petitioner in support of challenge to the impugned order and notice are as follows: (a) The income referred to in impugned order and notice Annexure P-3 and P-4 is not income chargeable to tax but is the gross proceeds/consideration received by petitioner for sale of 16 scooters during… Read More ...

Ramachandra Kanu Mendadkar v. CIT(A) (ITAT Mumbai)

The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 69A : Unexplained money-Advocate-Seizure of cash-Cash withdrawal from Bank-Professional fees received cash-Name of the client from whom cash received was disclosed-The cash amount was disclosed in the books of account-Revenue cannot ask the asseessee to prove the source of the source-Addition was deleted. [S. 44AB , 131(IA)] The assessee is a practicing advocate who… Read More ...

ACIT v Ramlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)

The Mumbai Tribunal has held that Section 68 : Cash credit – Jeweller-Demonetisation – allegation of inflated cash sales and huge cash deposit not commensurate with earlier year and subsequent year and customers did not substantiate their source of funds – held that such allegation cannot be the ground to make addition u/s 68 if sales are linked with the deposits… Read More ...

Uttrakhand Poorv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. vs. ITO (ITAT Dehradun)

The ITAT, Dehradun Bench has held that Facts of the case Assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 belatedly under section 139(4) of Income-tax Act, 1961 on 06.10.2015. This return was not selected for scrutiny by Assessing Officer. However, Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 on 22.01.2015 itself which is prior to the date of filing of… Read More ...

JM Financial Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)

The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 45 : Capital gains-Sale of shares held as investment–Indexed cost of acquisition-Cannot be assessed as business income–Issue of bonus shares is held to be justified – Sale of shares at cost-Short term capital loss allowable to be set off against long term capital gains-Transaction cannot be held to be colourable device to set off… Read More ...