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 Pune ITAT has held that Explanation 5 to Section 32 of the Act is not applicable in a case, when the department has not thrusted the depreciation on the assessee and allowed the same while computing the income of the assessee. In such a scenario ‘actual cost’ of the asset would be treated as ‘WDV’ of the asset, since no… Read More ...
The Calcutta High Court has held that Orbit Projects Pvt ltd Vs ITO, Ward 5(1),Kolkata & Ors Date-2nd March 2023 Sub-Whether an Assessing officer ignoring the judgement of Calcutta high court in the case of assessee itself issue a fresh notice u/s 148 disregarding the fact that the company in whose name the notice is issued is no longer in existence and… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 56 : Income from other sources-Relative-Individual-Private discretionary trust-Gift of equity shares to trust-Trust crested for the benefit of self and relatives-Any sum received without consideration, aggregate value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees-Pass through entity-Provision of section 56(2)(x) is not applicable. [S. 56(2)(x)] The assessee is a private discretionary trust. Settlor Mrs Archana Miglani… Read More ...
The Calcutta High Court has held that CIT Kolkata IV Vs Machino Techno Sales Limited (Calcutta high court) Date 20th February 2023 Sub- Whether area sharing by the land owner is eligible to be treated as capital gains in a development agreement and not business income? The division bench of Calcutta high court in this case was considering appeal of department where… Read More ...
The Gujarat High Court has held that S. 148A : Reassessment-Limitation-Notices issued pursuant to the case of UOI v. Ashish Agarwal (2022) 444 ITR 1 / 213 DTR 217/ 326 CTR 473/ 286 Taxman / AIR 2022 SC 2781 (SC)-Notice issued on or after 01.04.2021, the period concerned is between 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021-Relaxation Act will not apply-The law as per Finance Act,… Read More ...
The ITAT Mumbai has held that Notice under sec. 143(2) has to be issued by the Officer who completes the assessment before the due date i.e., 30.09.2015 and notice issued by the officer on 03.09.2015 for AY 2014-15 by the said officer was deemed invalid as the PCIT had transferred jurisdiction to him only on 05.12.2015 Read More ...
The Allahabad High Court has held that S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before the issue of notice-Limitation - Notices issued pursuant to the case of UOI v. Ashish Agarwal (2022) 444 ITR 1/ 213 DTR 217/ 326 CTR 473/ 286 Taxman / AIR 2022 SC 2781 (SC) – Notice issued on or after 01.04.2021, the period concerned is between 01.04.2021… Read More ...
The Calcutta High Court has held that PCIT Asansol Vs Durgapur Projects Limited (Calcutta High Court) Date-24th February 2023 Sub- Whether provisions of Section 50C can be applied when the immovable property is compulsorily acquired by the Government? Whether the definition of transfer u/s 2(47) can be considered for applying Section 50C or only when the transfer involves payment of stamp duty… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal-Maintainability-Consolidated order of CIT(A) for more than one year-One appeal cannot be filed against two reassessment orders for the same assessment year-Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963-R. 9-Appeal of revenue was dismissed. [S. 132, 153C, ITAT R. 9] There were two different search and seizure actions conducted by the Department and the… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Valuation of equity shares-Share premium-Income from other sources-No failure to disclose material facts-Notice of reassessment and order disposing objection was quashed. [S. 56(2)(viib), 148, Art. 226] The reason for reopening of the assessment was the petitioner had issued premium of Rs. 17 per share, which was not… Read More ...