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

Buckeye Trust v. PCIT (ITAT Bangalore)

The Bangalore Tribunal has held that S. 56 : Income from other sources-Discretionary trust-Property-Interest from partnership firm and shares from unlisted company-Trust for the benefit of relatives of settler-Power with the trustees to add any persons or class of persons or charity as beneficiaries- Revision order on the ground that the Trust is not wholly benefit of beneficiaries-Amount of Rs. 669… Read More ...

Infantry Security and Facilities through, proprietor Tukaram M. Surayawanshi v. ITO (Bombay High Court)

The Bombay High Court has held that S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Review-Statutory dues like the Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance -Payments were made before due date of filing of return-Allowed by the Tribunal-Corporation-Not deposited before due date of respective Acts-Delay of 92 days in filing miscellaneous application-Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application of the Revenue of… Read More ...

Mark Studio India Private Limited vs Income Tax Officer (Madras High Court)

The Madras High Court has held that (i) The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) does have ‘exclusive powers’ to issue notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Both the JAO and the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)will have concurrent powers for ‘assessment, re-assessment and re-computation’ of the particular income in a faceless manner. (ii) The Directorate of IT (Systems) shall have… Read More ...

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX INTN’L vs. WESTERN UNION FINANCIAL SERVICES INC (Delhi High Court)

The Delhi High Court has held that The Liaison Office of the assessee did not constitute a PE in India, there was no DAPE and that the software did not result in the creation of a permanent establishment. (i) On an overall conspectus of the various decisions handed down by this Court as well as the Supreme Court insofar as Fixed Place… Read More ...

The Chamber of Tax Consultants v. Director General of Income-Tax Systems & Ors (Bombay High Court)

The Bombay High Court has held that S. 87A : Rebate of income-tax in case of certain individuals-New tax regime-Tax on income of individuals and Hindu undivided family- Rebate u/s 87A is substantive right which cannot be deprived by procedural changes such as changes in the utility software made by the department-The Court has directed the CBDT to extend the date of… Read More ...

Raunaq Prakash Jain v. ITO (ITAT Jodhpur)

The Jodhpur Tribunal has held that S. 45 : Capital gains-Crypto currency-Bitcoin-Virtual Digital Asset-Held for more than 3 years (Thirty six months)-Property of any kind-Taxable as capital gains-Not as income from other sources-Entitle to claim exemption under Section 54F of the Act-Finance Act, 2022 w.e.f. 01.04.2022, Section 2(47A) had been inserted thereby Virtual Digital Asset meaning was assigned and that included… Read More ...

Raunaq Prakash Jain vs. Income Tax Officer (ITAT Jodhpur)

The ITAT Jodhpur has held that Cryptocurrencies are capital assets and any profits made on their sale prior to the amendments to sections 2(14) and 2(47A) by the Finance Act 2022 should be considered capital gains and taxed accordingly (1) Plain natural definition of ‘property’ as is given in the Act property ofany kind held by an assessee, whether or not… Read More ...

ACIT v. Rohit Krishna (ITAT Mumbai)

The Mumbai Tribunal has held that Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015) S. 43 : Penalty for failure to furnish return of income an information or furnish inaugurate particulars of an asset (Including financial interest in any entity) outside India-Failure to report foreign assets in the return- Employees Stock option- Tax is deducted at… Read More ...

ACIT vs Ranu Vohra (ITAT Mumbai)

The ITAT Mumbai has held that Short term capital loss from sale of shares after Bonus cannot be prevented from being set off against the long term capital gain by alleging adoption of colorable device Mindtree Ltd. announced bonus shares at the ratio of 1:1. As a result of issue of bonus shares, the price of share reduced almost to half… Read More ...

DCIT vs. Lalita Devi Agarwal (ITAT Mumbai)

The ITAT Mumbai has held that The assessee received the impugned gift from her son, who is a NRI. The details of the bank transfer were submitted to the AO, and these documents clearly established that the donor had sufficient funds to make the gift. With respect to the SEBI guidelines, the AR submitted that the SEBI order imposing the alleged… Read More ...