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

PCIT-12 Kolkata Vs Soorajmull Nagarmull (Calcutta High Court)

The Calcutta high court has held that PCIT-12 Kolkata Vs Soorajmull Nagarmull(Calcutta High Court) Date-23rd November, 2022 Sub-What are the parameters to consider the cessation of liability to be taxed u/s 41(1) of the Income-tax Act,1961 and relation with the limitation Act 1963. The Division bench of Calcutta High Court in this case even though was not satisfied about the grounds for… Read More ...

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Mansukh Dyeing and Printing Mills (Supreme Court)

The Supreme Court of india has held that The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Mansukh Dyeing and Printing Mills (Supreme Court) Date-24th November, 2022 Sub-Whether amount credited on account of revaluation of fixed assets and credited to the partners’ account is liable to be taxed u/s 45(4) of the Income-tax Act,1961. The department has made a major win today in the above case when… Read More ...

Sumit Export v. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

The Mumbai Tribunal has held that Sec. 2(29AA)/ Sec. 2(42A)/ Sec. 48 - Period of holding - immovable property - Date of acquisition - Provisional allotment versus final allotment. During the financial year under consideration, on 19.05.2012, the Assessee sold office premises in Bharat Diamond Bourse - a trade body of diamond merchants. The Final Allotment Letter in respect thereof was… Read More ...

Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)

The BANGALORE ITAT has held that Rural agricultural land situated beyond the specified limits was converted for non agricultural purposes but was used for agriculture till the date of sale- Facts: Assessee claimed that land is situated beyond the Municipal limits 10 kms. and therefore, it is not a capital asset as per section 2(14) of the Act. Revenue contended that… Read More ...

Poly flex (India) Pvt ltd Vs CIT & another (Supreme court)

The Supreme Court of India has held that Poly flex (India) Pvt ltd Vs CIT & another (Supreme court) Date-17th November, 2022 Sub- Whether deduction u/s 80IB can be claimed by a manufacturer of an item which falls under entry 25 of the eleventh schedule of the Income-tax Act,1961 which is not eligible for such claim? The Supreme Court of India in this… Read More ...

Singapore Airlines Limited Vs CIT, Delhi (Supreme Court)

The Supreme Court of India has held that Singapore Airlines Limited Vs CIT, Delhi (Supreme Court) Date-14th November,2022 Sub-Whether an airline is responsible for deducting tax at source in respect of supplementary commission which an agent is paid on the difference between the actual fare and the net fare- Section 194H of Income-tax Act, 1961 analysed including whether liability to deduct when the… Read More ...

DEEPAK KAPOOR Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, N.DELHI (DELHI HIGH COURT)

The DELHI HIGH COURT has held that Held in detail by division bench of Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan that AO cannot assume jurisdiction u/s 147 for re-opening the assessment in order to correct an error in the original assessment order framed u/s 143(3). Held that re-opening for reviewing the earlier assessment order is forbidden… Read More ...

DCIT v. Manish Vijay Mehta (Mum.)(Trib.)

The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 68 : Cash credits-Foreign bank deposits-HSBC account-Non-Resident-Merely on the basis of ‘base note’ addition cannot be made in the hands of non-Resident-Deletion of addition is affirmed. [S. 5(2), 6, 147, 148] The assessee is a non-resident since AY. 2001-02. The assessee is working an employee in Belgium and has no business communication in India… Read More ...

G-Trans Logistics (India) P Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)

The ITAT Delhi has held that CIT(A) dismissed the appeal just on the ground that in Form No.35, the section of assessment order mentioned is 144 instead of 143(3). CIT(A) held that it is an incurable defect. Tribunal noted that CIT(A) has not specified under which law, it is an incurable defect. On query in this regard from the ITAT, the… Read More ...

CIT Indore Vs S Kumars Tyres Manufacturing Co Ltd (Madhya Pradesh High Court)

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that CIT Indore Vs S Kumars Tyres Manufacturing Co Ltd (Madhya Pradesh High court) Date-4th November,2022 Sub-Whether there can be any penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of a debatable issue? The Division bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court was considering department’s appeal when ITAT had given relief to the assessee by holding that there could not… Read More ...