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 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI has held that The assessee has earned interest income to the tune of Rs. 4,85,800/- on FDR maintained with Saraswati Co-operative Bank and claimed the same as deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act which was disallowed by the Authorities below by their respective orders. Admittedly identical issue has already been decided in favour of the then Assessees by… Read More ...
The SUPREME COURT has held that S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Information from Sales-Tax Department-Failure to prove genuineness of purchases-Order of the Appellate Tribunal holding that only profit estimation at 12. 5% was set aside-Order of the Assessing Officer confirming the addition of entire purchases a bogus under section 69C of the Income-tax Act was affirmed by High Court - SLP… Read More ...
The SUPREME COURT has held that S. 261 : Appeal - Supreme Court -Limitation : Condonation of delay- Strictures-Departmental delay of 524 days-Unsatisfactory explanation-Internal procedural delays such as multiple scrutiny reports, repeated vetting and lack of timely direction for filing SLP held to be avoidable-However, considering that other matters on similar issue were already entertained, Supreme Court condoned the delay as… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 56 : Income from Other Sources-Stamp duty valuation-Difference between agreement date and registration date–Allotment letter treated as “agreement”–Part consideration paid through banking channel before agreement–Stamp duty valuation to be adopted as on date of allotment–Addition deleted. [S. 50C ,56(2)(vii)(b).] Where the assessee purchased a flat for ₹1,10,00,000 and the AO made an addition of… Read More ...
The Gujarat High Court has held that S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Faceless regime-Notice issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after 01.04.2022-Held to be valid-The Court clarified that paragraph 3 of the Scheme requires only automated allocation, not faceless issuance-Writ petitions dismissed-Not followed Hexaware Technologies Limited v. ACIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225/ 464 ITR 430 / 338… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus Purchases- Accommodation entries Assessing Officer disallowed 100% purchases as bogus purchases-CIT( A) restricted the disallowance to 8% of purchases against 100% of disallowed by the Assessing Officer-on appeal by Revenue the Tribunal affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer and confirmed 100% of bogus purchases. [S. 37, 68, 143(3), 147,… Read More ...
The Delhi High Court has held that The GST Department and even other Departments, including the IT Department ought to be careful while citing judicial precedents, specially if the same has been produced or accessed through Artificial Intelligence software, as there is a clear possibility of the citations themselves being fake Judicial precedents clearly demonstrate the risk of Artificial Intelligence hallucinating, by… Read More ...
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 ...