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 Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 68 : Cash credits-Unexplained expenditure-Capital gains-Penny stocks-Accommodation entries-Purchase of shares at premium in off market Transaction-Sale after three years-Report of Investigation Wing-Information never provided nor cross-examination of Individuals allowed-Additions is not valid. [S. 10(38), 45, 69] The assessee purchased 20,000 equity shares of Premier Capital Services Ltd in an off-market transaction through preferential allotment.… Read More ...
The Delhi High Court has held that Sunil Jain Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre(Delhi High Court) Date 22nd July, 2022 Sub-When an item of addition is being contested before CIT(Appeals) against original assessment, can notice u/s 148 be issued in respect of another item of undisclosed income of the same nature on the plea that the jurisdiction to deal with the same… Read More ...
The Calcutta High Court, Division Bench has held that The appellant has approached the writ court by filing WPA 9856 of 2022 challenging the assessment order passed under the provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961 dated 07th April, 2022 for the Assessment year 2018-19 primarily on the ground that it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hon'ble Division… Read More ...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that PCIT Shimla Vs JMJ Essential Oil Company (Himachal Pradesh High court) Date-20th July, 2022 Sub-Whether acceptance of cash sales by Sales-tax authorities imposes fetters on the Income-tax officer to treat the cash sales as unaccounted income and impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income? The assessee in this case enjoyed tax benefits… Read More ...
The Calcutta High Court has held that S. 68 : Cash credits-lenders are assessed to tax-Confirmation was filed-Interest was paid ,TDS was deducted-Notice issued u/s. 133(6) were acknowledged - Order of Tribunal deletion of addition was affirmed-Court observed that the Assessing officer should have desisted from using the general observation and expression “money Laundering” when it was never the case that there… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 245 : Refund-Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable-Adjustment made without prior intimation is held to be bad in law. [Art. 226] The Assessing Officer adjusted the refund without giving any prior intimation. On writ allowing the petition the Court held that where a party raises objection in response to the intimation, the… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Income from undisclosed sources -Bogus purchases-Civil works-Road construction-Information from Sales Tax Department-Order of Tribunal estimated profit of 12.5% on unexplained and non-genuine purchases is affirmed by High Court. [S. 37(1), 143(3), 260A] The assessee is involved in the execution of Civil works like road construction etc .under the Public Works Department… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 80IB(10) : Housing projects-Two flats excess of the prescribed limit of 1500 sq.ft.-Pro rata deduction in respect of eligible flats not exceeding prescribed limit is eligible-Interpretation of taxing Statutes-When the language of a statute is unambiguous and admits of only one meaning, no question of construction of a statute then arises. [S. 260A] The… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 36(1)(vii) : Bad debt-Pendency of dispute-Lease rental- Depreciation-Once a business decision has taken to write off a debt as a bad debt in books of account should sufficient to allow the claim as bad debt. [S. 36(2)] The assessee is a non Banking Finance Company engaged in the business of inter alia of lease… Read More ...
The Delhi High Court has held that Vipul Agarwal Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) Date-19th July, 2022 Sub-Delay of 10 days in filing the return by the Company of which the petitioner was a director- Prosecution u/s 276CC launched by the department-No notice to treat the director as Principal officer u/s 2(35)- Effect of ? The Delhi High Court in this case… Read More ...