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

Balaram Chainrai vs International Taxation, Ward (ITAT Mumbai) [ITA No. 1074/Mum/2025]

The Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT has held that Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT held that addition of alleged penny stock shall not be made in case of a regular investor on the basis of information from investigation wing. Facts: Assessee’s case has been reopened on the basis of information received from investigation wing that allegedly the assessee has done trading in penny stocks namely M/s.… Read More ...

ACIT v. Dhiraj Parbat Gothi (ITAT Mumbai)

The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Information from Investigation Wing-Addition restricted to 4% justified-Additional ground of Revenue to disallowance at 100% of alleged bogus purchases is rejected-No justification for 100% disallowance in absence of suppression of sales-Books of account not rejected-PCIT v. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd [2025] 172 taxmann.com 283 / 474 ITR 175 (Bom)(HC) is… Read More ...

Caishen Enterprise LLP v. ACIT (Bombay High Court)

The Bombay High Court has held that S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Faceless assessment-Notice is issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer-On writ the Court set aside the notice issued under Section 148 and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom- Honourable Court has granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the order simply by moving a Praecipe before this… Read More ...

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs ACIT (Bombay High Court)

The Bombay High Court has held that The Assessing Officer has to give details in the recorded reasons as to which fact or material was not disclosed by the Petitioner that led to its income escaping assessment. A mere bald assertion in the reasons that there was a failure on the part of the Petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material… Read More ...

Carona Limited v. DCIT (Bombay High Court)

The Bombay High Court has held that S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Disallowance of deduction- Method of accounting-Plausible interpretation of law-No malafide intention-Disclosed all relevant facts and no false statement-Penalty is deleted. [S. 43B, 145, 260A] The assessee claimed a deduction for the unpaid ad-hoc bonus. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction under Section 43B and imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing… Read More ...

Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (Bombay High Court)

The Bombay High Court has held that S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue-Sales Tax Incentive- Purpose test-Incentive for setting up industrial unit in backward area- Sales tax incentive under 1979 and 1983 Schemes is capital receipt, not chargeable to tax. [S. 28(i), 43B, 1979 Scheme, 1983 Scheme] For the assessment year 1987–88, Bajaj Auto Ltd. set up a new industrial… Read More ...

Kotak Family Foundation v. CIT(E) (Bombay High Court)

The Bombay High Court has held that S. 11 : Income from property held for charitable or religious purposes -Delay in e-verification of audit report-Audit report in Form 10B filed in time- E-verification delayed due to COVID-Delay is not intentional -Delay of 101 or 254 days within permissible limit-Rejection of condonation against principles of substantive justice-Procedural lapses should not override substantive justice,… Read More ...

SANDEEP GARG versus SALES TAX OFFICER (Delhi High Court)

The Delhi High Court has held that The Department sends automated e-mails and SMSs whenever anything is uploaded on the portal. If the taxpayer is not diligent in checking the portal & no reply to the Show Cause Notice is filed, the department cannot be blamed (i) A perusal of the screenshot shows that the reminder notice was clearly visible on 09th… Read More ...

PCIT v. Hans Chemicals Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)

The Bombay High Court has held that S. 268A : Appeal-Instructions-Circulars-Monetary limits-2 crores-Applicability of revised CBDT monetary limits (Circular No 3 of 2018 dt. 11-7-2028 (2018) 405 ITR 29 (St), Circular 9 of 2024 , dated 17th September, 2024, (2024) 468 ITR 1 (St.)-Exceptions Apply Prospectively -Pending Appeals Covered by revised threshold-Appeal of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 260A] In this case, the… Read More ...

Gokulakrishna v. DCIT (ITAT Chennai)

The Chennai Tribunal has held that S. 45(4) : Capital gains-Distribution of capital asset-Dissolution of firm - Introduction of new partner-Amount received by existing partner for sacrificing his profit-sharing ratio-Realignment of share ratio - No transfer of asset - No capital gain taxable on relinquishment of share ratio-Post amendment, 2021, Finance Act, 2021. [S. 2(14), 2(47), 9B, 45] The assessee is… Read More ...