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

Geeta Pravin Vypari (Mrs ) v. ITO

The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 69A : Unexplained money-Cash deposits during demonetization- Explained source as past withdrawals and share of siblings-Affidavit was filed before the Tribunal reaffirming the submissions made before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A)-Addition deleted as AO failed to rebut evidence and discharge burden-Additional ground admitted. [S. 115BBE, 254(1)] The assessee, a senior citizen and retired medical… Read More ...

GM Modular Private Limited v. PCIT

The Bombay High Court has held that S. 270A : Penalty-Under-reporting of income – Disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI – Addition already made in intimation u/s 143(1) – No “under-reported income” – Claim based on jurisdictional High Court judgment – Issue debatable – No penalty leviable – Revision u/s 264 maintainable – Commissioner cannot reject revision without reasons – Penalty and… Read More ...

Yogayatan Jankalyan Trust v. CIT (Exemptions) (ITAT Mumbai)

The ITAT Mumbai has held that Disbursal of loan scholarships to Indian students for study overseas constitutes application of income for charitable purposes in India. Therefore, registration under section 12AB or under section 80G cannot be denied on the ground that loan scholarship is granted to an Indian student in India for pursuing education outside India. Read More ...

Rahul Purswani vs. ITO (ITAT Pune)

The ITAT PUNE has held that Reassessment – Notice issued after 01.04.2021 – AY 2015-16 – Time-barred – Addition relating to property purchase made in wrong assessment year – Not Sustainable Sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Issue Whether reassessment proceedings for A.Y. 2015-16 initiated through a notice under section 148 issued after 01.04.2021 are valid, and whether… Read More ...

Omkara Diamonds Exports Pvt Ltd v. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

The ITAT Mumbai has held that A second round of reopening of assessment on the ground that assessee had made bogus purchases and making addition to the extent of 100% of such purchases was bad in law, when there was already a first round of reassessment proceedings for the same issue of bogus purchases wherein the AO made addition to the… Read More ...

PCIT v. Sarah Faisal Hawa (Bombay High Court)

The Bombay High Court has held that S. 263 : Commissioner - Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains - Business income from share transactions – Principle of consistency to be followed – Once similar income was accepted as capital gains in earlier and subsequent years, same cannot be assessed as business income in the year under consideration merely on the basis… Read More ...

Babita Chelawat vs. DCIT (ITAT Indore)

The ITAT INDORE has held that Reassessment – Penny Stock – Unexplained Investment – Addition in Wrong Assessment Year – Not Sustainable Sections 69 and 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Issue Whether an addition on account of alleged unexplained investment in penny stock shares can be made in an assessment year different from the year in which the investment was… Read More ...

Sanjay Shantilal Dave v. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (ITAT Mumbai)

The ITAT Mumbai has held that Notice under section 148 of the Act issued after three years from the end of the assessment year is bad in law if the sanction has been obtained from PCIT instead of the PCCIT. Read More ...

K. A. Investments Consultancy LLP v. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Change of opinion-Survey- Penny stock-Alleged bogus business loss- AO had specifically examined the assessee’s loss in shares of Shree Nath Commercial and Finance Ltd-Reopening was subsequently based on the very same survey material, Kolkata Investigation Wing report on penny stocks, and the same disclosed transactions, the reopening was invalid… Read More ...

ITO v. Varun Jaisingh Asher (ITAT Mumbai)

The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 54F : Capital gains-Investment in a residential house-Tenancy rights-Redevelopment-Income from other sources-Flat received on surrender of tenancy rights-Not taxable u/s. 56(2)(x)- Exemption u/s 54F allowable. [S. 2(14), 2(47), 45, 56(2)(x)] The assessee claimed exemption u/s 54F in respect of a flat received from the developer on surrender of tenancy rights in a redevelopment project.… Read More ...