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 has held that Exemption u/s 54 duly available as construction of residential house completed within 3 years: ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee is eligible to claim exemption u/s. 54 of the Income Tax Act as the construction of residential house completed within three years from the relevant date. Facts- The assessee in its return of income claimed… Read More ...
The ITAT Mumbai has held that This appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order of the ld. PCIT passed u/s 263 of the Income-Tax Act pertaining to AY 2017- 18. The ld. PCIT invoked the provision of section 263 of the Act on the ground that the AO has failed to conduct all necessary enquiries required and has… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that The assessee, during the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2010-2011, transferred 30,65,600 shares of United Phosphorus Limited (UPL) and 3,06,560 shares of Uniphos Enterprises Limited (UEL) both public listed companies to one Nerka Chemicals Private Limited (NCPL) by way of a gift in terms of Transfer Deed dated 26th February 2010. Since the shares… Read More ...
The ITAT Mumbai has held that The explanation was there on the record and also explained before the ld. AO and ld. CIT(A), then we fail to understand what was the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the facts. Ld. AO has tried to draw his own inference in the reasons and tried to justify it without actual… Read More ...
The ITAT Indore has held that Issue: Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be levied when the assessee had paid self-assessment tax before the issue of notice under section 148. BRIEF FACTS: The assessee failed to file the original return for the relevant year but paid self-assessment tax before a notice u/s 148 was issued… Read More ...
The ITAT Indore has held that Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) can not be levied if the self-assessment tax is paid prior to notice issued u/s 148. Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that Redevelopment Project – Purchase of additional area by existing member of society – consideration received by the builder held to be proceeds from right in the saleable area and not towards the sale of flat. Sec 50C shall not apply in case of builder and developer offering income under the head profits and gains from… Read More ...
The Supreme Court has held that Interest-free or concessional loans given by banks to employees are taxable fringe benefits. (i) Section 17(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rule 3(7)(i) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 were challenged by staff unions and officers' associations of various banks on the grounds of constitutionality. They argued that Rule 3(7)(i) was arbitrary and… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Non-resident of Indian-Jurisdiction to be checked at the time of issue of notice-The Honourable Court also observed that the Assessing Officer has taken dishonest stand-Notice and consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer for the relevant year is quashed. [S. 120, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art.… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 194I : Deduction at source-Rent-Alternative accommodation-Transit rent -Developer or Builder-Development agreement-Hardship Allowance / Rehabilitation Allowance / Displacement Allowance-Not revenue receipt-Not liable to tax-Not liable to deduct tax at source. [S. 4, Art. 226] On a writ the issue before the Court was as to whether there should be deduction of TDS on the amount… Read More ...