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-Mumbai in ITA No. 1574/Mum/2025 has held that ITAT Mumbai vide 2 separate orders passed by both members quashes reassessment proceedings for AY 2018-19 initiated in April,2022 on the ground that the sanction for issuing notices under sections 148A(d) and 148 was wrongly obtained from the PCIT instead of the PCCIT, as required under Section 151(ii) once more than three years had elapsed.… Read More ...
The ITAT, D Bench, has held that The assessee, Moraj Group Hospitalities Inc., appealed against the penalty of ₹24,72,000 levied under section 271(1)(c) for AY 2015-16, which arose from an addition of ₹80 lakhs made in reassessment relating to a loan from Dhanvi Corporation. The assessee argued that the penalty order and notices were invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to specify… Read More ...
The ITAT, B bench, Shri Pawan Singh (JM), Smt. Renu Jauhri (AM) has held that The assessee, a registered charitable trust running an educational institution and eligible for exemption under sections 11, 12A/12AB and 80G, filed its return for AY 2018–19 in time along with a duly obtained audit report in Form 10B dated 25.09.2018. However, the digital upload of Form 10B on the income-tax portal occurred on 27.06.2019. AO/… Read More ...
The ITAT, F bench, Shri Saktijit Dey (Vice President), Shri N. K. Billaiya (Accountant Member) has held that The assessee, Ultima Realtors Pvt. Ltd., a company whose name was struck off by the Registrar of Companies filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2014–15. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as “not maintainable,” stating that the company’s name had been struck off and therefore could not file an appeal. However,… Read More ...
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 ...