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 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 ...
The Bombay High Court has held that Mistake in Recorded reason- No reason to believe - Approval u/s 151 is mechanical. A mistake in recorded reason could certainly not be the reason to believe that petitioner’s income has escaped assessment. Approval under Section 151 of the Act also has been given on the same reasons, which would also indicate total non application… Read More ...
The Supreme Court has held that S. 147 : Reassessment-Beyond four years-Tangible material-Reason to believe-In the form of documents, relevant to the issue -Sufficiency of that material cannot dictate the validity of the notice. [S. 148] Where the “reasons to believe” forming part of the Section 147 of the Act, clearly point to the fact that the reopening of assessment was… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 151 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Limitation-Sanction-Sanction by Additional Commissioner instead of Principal Commissioner-Taxation and other laws (Relaxation of certain Provisions) Act, 2020 only extended period of limitation and not for approval by the competent Authority-Sanction by Additional Commissioner was held to be bad in law-Reassessment notice was quashed. [S. 147, 148, Art.… Read More ...
The Supreme Court has held that S. 143(3): Assessment-Order passed in the name of non-existent amalgamating entity-valid. [Companies Act, 1956, S. 394, 481] It was held that corporate death upon amalgamation does not invalidate assessment as after amalgamation, the amalgamating entity is treated as a continuing one, and any benefits, by way of carry forward of losses (of the transferor company),… Read More ...
The ITAT, B Bench Kolkata has held that Failure on the part of SO to deliver copy of reason to believe to assessee within prescribed time of 6 years ending on 31.3.2015,to raise objection to reopen the legally closed assessment u/s 143(3) of IT Act 1961,is bad in law and against law of natural justice, not sustainable in the eye of law, further… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. S. 43 : Penalty for failure to furnish return of income an information, or furnish inaccurate particulars about an asset (including interest in any entity) located outside India- Foreign Bank Account-Signatory for late Mother-Amount was donated to the Charity-Not beneficial owner-Mere no… Read More ...