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 Bombay High court has held that Section 147 – Reopening – Lenders had shown very less income in the ITR – Held reopening is bad on account of change of opinion – High Court shows indulgence towards AO, refrains from issuing notice for perjury and imposing costs for making wrong statement in reply. Reopening was done beyond fours years on the… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 143(1) : Assessment -Adjustment based on Audit report - Employees contribution to provident fund-Amendment in Finance Bill 2021-Adjustment is not justified. [S. 2(24(x), 36(1)(va), 43B] Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that adjustment made by the CPC on the basis of Audit report is not valid as it is contrary to… Read More ...
The ITAT Mumbai has held that The Assessing Officer-CPC has used a standard reason to the effect that “As there has been no response/the response given is not acceptable, the adjustment(s) as mentioned below are being made to the total income as per provisions of Section 143(1)(a)”, and has not even struck off the portion inapplicable. To put a question to… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Change of opinion- Payment to related parties-Incentives to senior employees- Difference in VAT return and Turnover as per profit and loss account-Reconciliation-Questions asked in the course of original assessment proceedings-No discussion in the assessment order- Reassessment notice was quashed. [S. 40A(2)(b), 148, Art. 226] The assessment of the petitioner… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that Reopening within four years – deemed rental income on stock in trade & Section 43CA on difference in Agreement value and stamp value – issues examined in original assessment proceedings- change of opinion – reopening is bad in law. Reopening was done on two issues. The first issue was that petitioner has, in the profit… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that If NFAC is a party respondent, the cause title will state NFAC c/o. concerned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and that Principal Commissioner of Income Tax shall accept service on behalf of NFAC. Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue- Payment to specified persons-Revision proceedings cannot travel beyond the reasons given in show cause notice- 0rder of Tribunal is affirmed. [S. 40A(2)(b)] Dismissing the appeal of the revenue, the Court held that, where the show cause notice under section 263 of the Act suggested only 2… Read More ...
The Bombay High court has held that PCIT Vs Universal Music India Pvt Ltd(Bombay High Court) Date-19th April,2022 Sub-Whether CIT in terms of power available u/s 263 can travel beyond the terms of Show cause notice without giving any opportunity of hearing and ratio of judgement of Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200(SC). The… Read More ...
The ITAT, Cuttack has held that Approval given under section 53D by the JCIT for passing assessment orders is without application of mind as the JCIT has not mentioned in the approval order that he has gone through the relevant assessment records and draft assessment order for granting approval. Read More ...
The Supreme Court of India has held that WIPRO Finance Limited Vs CIT(Supreme Court of India) Date-12th April,2022 Sub-Whether foreign exchange fluctuation of Rs 1.10 crore incurred for the purpose of borrowing in the business of financing and leasing is a revenue expenditure allowable u/s 37 and also whether the ITAT has power to entertain a new claim of Rs. 2.46 crores for… Read More ...