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

Skyway Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd v. DCIT (Bombay High Court)

The Bombay High Court has held that S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-ITAT has not dealt with the issue of Document Identification Number (DIN)-Failure to decide Cross objection-Search-Assessment order without-Not uploaded on portal before limitation-Violation of CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 dt. 14th August, 2019-Bogus purchases-Un secured loan-Assessment was not uploaded on Portal before the expiry of limitation-Screen shots-Miscellaneous application was rejected… Read More ...

PCIT vs. ZULU MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED (Calcutta High Court)

The Calcutta High Court has held that Bogus Capital Gains from Penny Stocks: Surrounding circumstances have to be taken note of & the test of human probabilities have to be applied. Though the shares were sold in the normal course of business through shares brokers in Demat Form in stock exchanges & payment were made through banking channel, the capital gains can… Read More ...

Krishnagopal B. Nangpal v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Bombay High Court)

The Bombay High Court has held that Sale proceeds of one residential house, used for purchase of multiple residential houses qualifies for exemption under Section 54(1) of the Income-tax Act prior to its amendment by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 (i) The amendment brought in by Finance (No.2) Act 2014 to section 54 makes the position clear that after the amendment, the… Read More ...

HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD VERSUS ADIT (SUPREME COURT)

The Supreme Court has held that Permanent Establishment: One of the sine qua non for a fixed place PE is that the place through which the business is carried on must be 'at the disposal' of the enterprise. The degree of control and supervision exercised, and the presence of ownership, management, or operational authority have to be seen. On facts, the… Read More ...

Dadha Pharma LLP Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Madras High Court)

The Madras High Court has held that S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Central Circle-Notice issued by jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO ) rather than the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO)- Notice and consequential order under section 148A(d) is quashed and set aside - Liberty is granted to the Revenue to seek revival if the Supreme Court later reverses the… Read More ...

Subhash Chander Oberoi v. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed Dividend - Advance received from closely held company by its shareholder - Holding more than 10% -Commercial transaction - Not assessable as deemed dividend. Assessee was holding 35% shares in the company, which had two subsidiary companies. A foreign entity wanted to purchase stake in the company but was not interested… Read More ...

PCIT v. Pacific Organics Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court)

The Bombay High Court has held that S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Notice must specify the charge- Notice must be precise and there should be no room for ambiguity- Veena Estate (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2024] 158 taxmann.com 341 / 461 ITR 483 (Bom.)(HC), distinguished- Order of Tribunal is affirmed. [S. 260A] The ITAT held that the penalty show cause notice was ambiguous, as… Read More ...

Balaram Chainrai vs International Taxation, Ward (ITAT Mumbai) [ITA No. 1074/Mum/2025]

The Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT has held that Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT held that addition of alleged penny stock shall not be made in case of a regular investor on the basis of information from investigation wing. Facts: Assessee’s case has been reopened on the basis of information received from investigation wing that allegedly the assessee has done trading in penny stocks namely M/s.… Read More ...

ACIT v. Dhiraj Parbat Gothi (ITAT Mumbai)

The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Information from Investigation Wing-Addition restricted to 4% justified-Additional ground of Revenue to disallowance at 100% of alleged bogus purchases is rejected-No justification for 100% disallowance in absence of suppression of sales-Books of account not rejected-PCIT v. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd [2025] 172 taxmann.com 283 / 474 ITR 175 (Bom)(HC) is… Read More ...

Caishen Enterprise LLP v. ACIT (Bombay High Court)

The Bombay High Court has held that S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Faceless assessment-Notice is issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer-On writ the Court set aside the notice issued under Section 148 and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom- Honourable Court has granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the order simply by moving a Praecipe before this… Read More ...