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 Delhi Tribunal has held that S. 147 : Reassessment-Long-term capital gains-Addition on issue forming reasons for reopening deleted by CIT(A)-Reassessment held invalid.[S. 68, 69, 10(38), Expl. 3 to S. 147, 148, 255(4)] The assessee, a Government employee, filed a return declaring salary income. Based on an Investigation Wing report, the AO reopened the assessment u/s 147 alleging receipt of ₹9.60… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 250 : Appeal - Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure - Second order passed in same appeal-Faceless regime-Cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on Department. [ITAT Rules, 1963, R. 32A(2)] The assessee’s appeal for AY 2013–14 against additions made u/s 143(3) had been allowed by the CIT(A)-7 vide order dated 22.01.2018 in physical mode. Subsequently, after the introduction… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 68 : Cash credits-Long term capital gain-Penny stock-Sale of shares-Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd.-Kappac Pharma Ltd.-Acquired at Rs. 12 and sold at Rs. 720 per share-Abnormal price rise-General investigation report-Cash purchase and late dematerialization-No cogent evidence of genuine transaction – Addition upheld. [S. 10(38), 115BBE, 131, 133(6)] The assessee claimed exemption u/s 10(38) on LTCG… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 56 : Income from other sources-Share premium-Valuation under DCF method-AO cannot substitute or reject valuation done by a prescribed valuer without authority-Projection variations with actuals cannot be a ground to disregard valuation-Deletion of addition justified. [S. 56(2)(viib), 11UA(2)(b)] The assessee issued shares at a premium of ₹10 per share based on a Chartered Accountant’s… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) has held that S. 254 r.w. R. 35: Though the assessee can be represented before the ITAT by an authorized representative, the order has to be served upon the assessee directly. A service of the order upon the authorized representative is not good service (i) The assessee is permitted to be represented in any proceedings before any Income… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Salary paid to staff/ spouse and professional fees-Disallowance is restricted to 30%.[S. 40(a)(ia),143(3)] The AO disallowed the salary paid to spouse of the employees. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowances to 30 % of gross receipts. The Tribunal afformed the order of the CIT(A). (ITA Nos. 4147 to 4153 & 4585 to… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes-Profits and gains from housing projects-Condonation of delay-Genuine hardship-Delay in filing of return of income-Genuine hardship-Claim for deduction under section 80IBA-Delay of 45 days due to illness of managing partner- Rejection not justified. [S. 80IBA, 119(2(b), 139, Art. 226] The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in construction, received a… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-ITAT has not dealt with the issue of Document Identification Number (DIN)-Failure to decide Cross objection-Search-Assessment order without-Not uploaded on portal before limitation-Violation of CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 dt. 14th August, 2019-Bogus purchases-Un secured loan-Assessment was not uploaded on Portal before the expiry of limitation-Screen shots-Miscellaneous application was rejected… Read More ...
The Calcutta High Court has held that Bogus Capital Gains from Penny Stocks: Surrounding circumstances have to be taken note of & the test of human probabilities have to be applied. Though the shares were sold in the normal course of business through shares brokers in Demat Form in stock exchanges & payment were made through banking channel, the capital gains can… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that Sale proceeds of one residential house, used for purchase of multiple residential houses qualifies for exemption under Section 54(1) of the Income-tax Act prior to its amendment by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 (i) The amendment brought in by Finance (No.2) Act 2014 to section 54 makes the position clear that after the amendment, the… Read More ...