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 Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure -Bogus Purchases - Only profit element to be taxed- Addition restricted to 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases- Bombay High Court ruling in PCIT v. Kanak Impex(India) Ltd [2025] 474 ITR 175 / 172 taxmann.com 283 (Bom)(HC) is distinguished. [ S. 133(6), 147 , 148 ] The assessee, engaged in construction,… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure - Bogus purchases - Addition restricted to 4% – Tribunal held that since purchases were supported by invoices, bank statements, stock register, and no defect was found in books or sales, only profit element could be added. High Court decision in PCIT v. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd. [2025] 474 ITR… Read More ...
The HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ,AGRA BENCH SMC .AGRA has held that ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS REGARDING SALARY OF RS,348918 PAYABLE AS ON 31-03-2016 TO BE GENUINE BUSINESS LIABILITY ARISING IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS, WHICH WAS PAID IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR THEN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56 OF THE ACT PER SE COULD NOT MADE APPLICABLE TO THE IMPUGNED… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 144C : Dispute Resolution Panel-Draft Assessment Order-Eligible assessee-Not an eligible assessee if TPO makes no variation- Assessment order without jurisdiction-Quashed assessment order. [S. 92CA(3), 144C(15)(b), Art. 226] The assessee challenged the Draft Assessment Order under section 144C and the consequential final assessment and penalty notices. The Assessing Officer had referred the case to the… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Bogus purchases-Addition on estimation-Rejection of books oaf account-Penalty not leviable. [S. 145(3), 147, 148, 260A] The assessee, engaged in operating a photo studio, had filed return for AY 2011–12. In reassessment, the AO, relying on Sales Tax Department information, treated purchases from alleged hawala parties as non-genuine, rejected books u/s 145(3), and… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 192 : Deduction at source-Salary-Consultant doctors-No employer-employee relationship-TDS deductible u/s 194J-Income from business or profession-No substantial question of law-Contract- Annual Maintenance Contracts (AMCs)-Whether technical services- Matter remanded to the Tribunal to verify the contract. [S. 133A, 194C, 194J, 201(1), 201(1A), 260A] On appeal by the revenue the Court held that where consultant/honorary doctors engaged… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 56 : Income from other sources – Property received for inadequate consideration – Difference between agreement value and stamp duty value – Oral agreement supported by contemporaneous evidence –Agreement fixing the consideration and does not mandatorily require a written agreement - Change in stamp duty valuation method – Addition not sustainable- No binding precedent… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Carry forward of deficit – Excess expenditure incurred by trust in earlier years – Set off against income of subsequent years – Permissible – Appeal of Revenue dismissed. [S. 11(1)(a), 11(1)(d), 260A.] The Revenue challenged the Tribunal’s order allowing the assessee–trust to carry forward the deficit… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 270A : Penalty for under -reporting and misreporting of income - Transfer Pricing adjustment – Advanced Pricing Agreement – No order passed u/s. 92CD(3) on modified return – Virtual hearing mandatory under Faceless Penalty Scheme – Penalty order quashed and matter remanded to AO to grant virtual hearing and pass fresh speaking order within… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 143(3) Assessment – Disallowance of expenditure – Business income - Entries in the books of account is not conclusive- Alternative remedy – No deduction of expenses claimed either by assessee or unit holders – Addition made by AO wholly without jurisdiction – Writ petition maintainable – Assessment order quashed. [S. 10(23FBA), 28(i), 37(1), 115UB,… Read More ...