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

VIJAY KRISHNASWAMI VERSUS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) (SUPREME COURT)

The Supreme Court has held that Section 276C(1): Prosecution for Wilful attempt to evade tax cannot be initiated until the ITAT confirms levy of penalty (i) As per departmental circular dated 24.04.2008, Prosecution Manual, 2009, and CBDT’s circular dated 09.09.2019, prosecution under Section u/s 276C(1) shall be launched only after the confirmation of the order imposing penalty by the Income Tax… Read More ...

ABDUL HAMID NACHAR VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 SRINAGAR (ITAT Amritsar)

The INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH has held that ABDUL HAMID NACHAR Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 Read More ...

Sky High Leasing Company Ltd. v. ACIT (Intl. Tax) (ITAT Mumbai)

The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Aircraft leasing-Multilateral Instrument (MLI)-Principal Purpose Test (PPT) cannot be applied in absence of specific Sec. 90(1) notification-Lease rentals not taxable as royalty-No Permanent establishment in India- Entitle to treaty benefit-DTAA-India Ireland. [S. 9(1)(i), 90(1), 143(3), 144C(13), 234A, 234B, 270A, Art. 5, 6, 7 , 8(1)… Read More ...

Dhanraj Govindram Kella v. ITO (Gujarat High Court)

The Gujarat High Court has held that S. 147 : Reassessment-Validity of notices issued under old regime after 01.04.2021-Limitation and sanction under new regime- Considering the surviving time available-limitation under S.149 had expired or sanction under S.151 of appropriate authority was lacking, the reassessment notices were invalid. [S. 148, 148A, 149, 151, Art. 226] The assessee challenged notices issued u/s 148 (old… Read More ...

ITO v. Prakash Pandurang Patil (SUPREME COURT)

The SUPREME COURT has held that S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice- Faceless regime – Jurisdiction of JAO – Notice after three years-Sanction of Specified Authority-Approval to be obtained from Principal Chief Commissioner-Approval from Principal Commissioner-Sanction is invalid-Order and consequent notice is invalid S. 148 - SLP of revenue was dismissed for failure to explain the… Read More ...

Damani Research Foundation of Medical Sciences v. CIT (E) (Bombay High Court)

The Bombay High Court has held that S. 12A : Registration-Trust or institution-Delay in filing audit report- Condonation of delay in filing Form 10B-Justice oriented approach should prevail over a pedantic one-Delay of 27 days condoned-Order of Commissioner (E) was set aside. [S. 11, 12, 119, Form No. 10B, Art. 226] The assessee, Damani Research Foundation of Medical Sciences, filed a writ… Read More ...

Shree Cement Ltd. v. ACIT & Ors. (Rajasthan High Court)

The Rajasthan High Court has held that S. 149 : Reassessment-Time barring-First proviso-Faceless regime-Jurisdiction of AO-Notice held barred by limitation and without jurisdiction. [S. 80IA, 133A, 143(3), 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 151A, Art. 226] The assessee, engaged in manufacture and sale of cement, filed ROI for AY 2017–18 claiming deduction u/s 80IA on profits from SWM, WTS and NIPU. The claim was examined… Read More ...

Babu Hasan Shaikh v. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 149 : Reassessment-Time barring-First proviso-Notice issued beyond six years-Fifth proviso not applicable-Notice quashed. [S. 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d) , 149(1)(b).] The assessee, a contractor, had sold immovable property in AY 2015–16 but did not file a return. Based on information from the Sub-Registrar, the AO issued a notice u/s 148A(b) on 24-03-2022, passed an… Read More ...

Mahesh Kumar v. ITO (ITAT Delhi)

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 ...

Karnataka Sangha v. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

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 ...