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 ITAT, E bench, Shri Pawan Singh (Judicial Member), Smt. Renu Jauhri (Accountant Member) has held that The assessee, Haresh Damji Shah, was a joint tenant along with his wife in a residential premises in Dadar, Mumbai. The property underwent redevelopment, and under a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (PAAA), the assessee surrendered his tenancy rights in exchange for a new residential flat, car parking, hardship compensation, transit rent, shifting charges, brokerage and… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that Notice u/s 148 issued to a company which ceased to exist after its conversion into a LLP is illegal as it has been taken against a non- existent entity (i) We find that the issue regarding the invalidity of a notice issued to a non-existent entity is no longer res-integra and is covered by the… Read More ...
The Income Tax appellate Tribunal A Bench Delhi has held that we are inclined to sustain the ground holding that the disallowance in regard to delayed deposits of employees contribution could not have been made by way of rectification proceedings u/s 154 of the Act. The ground is sustained. The appeal is allowed. Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 119 : Central Board of Direct Taxes- Circular-Condonation of delay -Filing of return of loss-Genuine hardship – Delay of 5 months in filing return due to bona fide professional advice by Chartered Accountant – Assessee should not suffer grave hardship for a professional’s mistake - Circular No. 9 of 2015 – Delay was condoned… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 147 : Reassessment-Information from third-party search-Accommodation entries-Cash credits -Section 153C not triggered, reopening u/s 147 is valid-On merits, addition based mainly on untested third-party statement without cross-examination requires fresh adjudication by CIT(A). [S. 68, 132(4), 133(6), 148, 151, 153C, ITAT Rule, 1963 ,R. 27] In a search on the Sushil Lahoti group, statements indicated… Read More ...
The ITAT Indore has held that CBDT Instruction No. 3/2017 dated 21.02.2017—which directs that no verification is required for cash deposits up to ₹2.5 lakh by individual taxpayers—is binding on the department. The ITAT observed that such deposits can reasonably be explained as household savings or small business receipts and that additions contrary to the Instruction are unjustified. Read More ...
The Delhi Tribunal has held that S. 115BAA : Tax on income of certain domestic companies – Determination of tax in certain cases- Option exercised under section 115BAA – Rate of tax applicable – Long term capital gains – Company opting for taxation under section 115BAA is liable to pay tax at 22% on total income including long-term capital gains and… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 263 : Commissioner - Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Limited Scrutiny – Deemed rental income -Order passed after due enquiry cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue – PCIT cannot revise assessment to include issues beyond the scope of limited scrutiny (S.143(3), IND AS-115) The assessee, an individual… Read More ...
The Chennai Tribunal has held that S. 275 : Penalty-Bar of limitation- Recording of satisfaction-Cross objection- CBDT Circular binding on department -Period of limitation is to be reckoned from the date of recording of satisfaction by the AO in the assessment order and not from the date of notice issued by the Joint/Additional CIT. [S. 119, 269SS, 271D, 271E, 271AAA, 275(1)(c)]… Read More ...
The Delhi High Court has held that S. 278B : Offences by companies-Prosecution of directors without impleading company-Not maintainable-Arraignment of company is a condition precedent for prosecuting its directors-Company being the principal offender must first be made an accused-Proceedings against directors alone quashed. [S. 276, 281, Cr PC, 1973, S. 482 BNSS, Act, 2023, S. 528, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S. 141]… Read More ...