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. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Bogus purchases-Addition on estimation-Rejection of books oaf account-Penalty not leviable. [S. 145(3), 147, 148, 260A] The assessee, engaged in operating a photo studio, had filed return for AY 2011–12. In reassessment, the AO, relying on Sales Tax Department information, treated purchases from alleged hawala parties as non-genuine, rejected books u/s 145(3), and… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 192 : Deduction at source-Salary-Consultant doctors-No employer-employee relationship-TDS deductible u/s 194J-Income from business or profession-No substantial question of law-Contract- Annual Maintenance Contracts (AMCs)-Whether technical services- Matter remanded to the Tribunal to verify the contract. [S. 133A, 194C, 194J, 201(1), 201(1A), 260A] On appeal by the revenue the Court held that where consultant/honorary doctors engaged… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 56 : Income from other sources – Property received for inadequate consideration – Difference between agreement value and stamp duty value – Oral agreement supported by contemporaneous evidence –Agreement fixing the consideration and does not mandatorily require a written agreement - Change in stamp duty valuation method – Addition not sustainable- No binding precedent… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Carry forward of deficit – Excess expenditure incurred by trust in earlier years – Set off against income of subsequent years – Permissible – Appeal of Revenue dismissed. [S. 11(1)(a), 11(1)(d), 260A.] The Revenue challenged the Tribunal’s order allowing the assessee–trust to carry forward the deficit… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 270A : Penalty for under -reporting and misreporting of income - Transfer Pricing adjustment – Advanced Pricing Agreement – No order passed u/s. 92CD(3) on modified return – Virtual hearing mandatory under Faceless Penalty Scheme – Penalty order quashed and matter remanded to AO to grant virtual hearing and pass fresh speaking order within… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 143(3) Assessment – Disallowance of expenditure – Business income - Entries in the books of account is not conclusive- Alternative remedy – No deduction of expenses claimed either by assessee or unit holders – Addition made by AO wholly without jurisdiction – Writ petition maintainable – Assessment order quashed. [S. 10(23FBA), 28(i), 37(1), 115UB,… Read More ...
The Supreme Court has held that Condonation of 3966 days delay: Courts ought not give a legitimizing effect to such callous attitude of State authorities or its instrumentalities, and should remain extra cautious, if the party seeking condonation of delay is a State-authority. They should not become surrogates for State laxity and lethargy. Constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the… Read More ...
The Delhi ITAT has held that Case of alleged bogus purchase: All details in the form of books of accounts, copy invoices, GR, bilties etc. were filed before the Assessing Officer and the AO without pointing out any specific defect therein rejected the books of account u/s 145(3) and made the impugned addition of Rs. Rs.12,86,416/- by applying the GP rate… Read More ...
The Delhi ITAT has held that Hon'ble ITAT held that Notice issued u/s 143(2) by the Assessing Officer on 24.09.2018 having been issued in violation of the binding CBDT Instruction No.F.No.225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017. The CBDT u/s 119 of the Act issued the above instructions prescribing mandatory revised formats for all scrutiny notices issued u/s 143(2) of the Act. These instructions are… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-PF/ESI contribution-Subsequent decision of Supreme Court-Cannot be ground for rectification-Tribunal erred in recalling its order on the basis of subsequent ruling-Writ petition allowed. [S. 254(1), 143(1)(a), 36(1)(va), 43B, 260A, Art. 226, CPC O. 47 R.1] The assessee filed return for AY 2019–20. CPC disallowed employees’… Read More ...