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. 279 : Offences and prosecutions-Sanction-Chief Commissioner- Commissioner-Compounding application filed beyond 36 months from the date of filing of complaint-Rejection of application-CBDT guidelines are not statute-Rejection of compounding application is quashed-Commissioner is directed to consider all facts and circumstances and decide whether such facts make out the case for exercising discretion in favour of compounding… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 147 : Reassessment-Limitation-TOLA did not apply as the limitation period expired before 20.03.2020- Notice under section 148 issued in 31-7-2022, which is beyond the prescribed time limit- Reassessment held to be invalid. [S. 68, 133(6), 142(1), 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 149, 151, 154, 115JB] The scrutiny assessment was completed under Section 143(3) 29 -12 -2017.… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Change of opinion-Alleged double deduction-No failure to disclose material facts-Reassessment is quashed and set aside. [S. 143(3), 148, 149, 151, 36(1)(vii), 37(1), Art. 226] The assessee filed its original return of income in October 2007 and revised it in March 2009, claiming a deduction of ₹69,88,37,464 for inventories, sundry… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 147 : Reassessment-Revision-Notional rent-Income from house property-Change of opinion-Reopening based on issues already examined in revision proceedings-The original assessment order dt. 31.12.2015) is no longer existed, as it was set aside under Section 263- Making the reopening procedurally invalid-Reassessment is quashed. [S. 22, 143(3), 148, 149, 151, 263, Art. 226] The assessee, engaged in… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 132 : Search and Seizure-Ultra vires seizure-Stock in trade-Writ petition disposed of with directions to avail alternative remedy under S. 132B of the Act . [S. 131(1A), 132(1)(iii), 132B, Art. 226] The petitioners’ gold and jewellery were seized at Bhubaneswar Airport on 12 May 2024. They contended that the seizure was illegal and ultra… Read More ...
The Telangana High Court has held that S. 119 : Central Board of Direct Taxes- Powers of CBDT – Genuine hardship – Reassessment – Fictitious income – CBDT’s refusal to allow re computation despite established fraud – Order quashed and set aside. [S. 10A, 119(2)(b), 139(5), 147, 154,245, 264, 281B, Art. 14, 19(1)(g), 226, 265, 300A] The petitioner, Satyam Computer Services Limited… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 151 : Reassessment - Sanction for issue of notice –Additional ground admitted - Approval from incorrect authority – Notice issued without valid sanction from specified authority – Notice is quashed and set aside. [S. 144C(13), 147, 148A(d), 151(ii), Art. 226] The assessee, a non-resident Indian, filed an e-return of income for AY 2017-18 on… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Stay of demand-Refund adjustment-Delay in disposal of stay application-Strictures-The delay of six years in deciding the stay application is unjustified and that respondents cannot take advantage of their own delay-The Court directed the revenue to refund the amount within four weeks and suggested that the petitioner apply for an early hearing… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Change of opinion-No fresh tangible material-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed. [S. 35AC, 80G, 143(3), 148, Art. 226] The petitioner filed its return of income for AY 2016-17 on 26 November 2016, declaring Rs. 26,36,01,64,390 as total income. The return was selected for scrutiny, and the… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Limitation-COVID extension not applicable-Rectification application is filed beyond period of six months-Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone delay-Writ petition is dismissed. [Art. 226] The ITAT dismissed the petitioner’s appeal on 21 September 2021, and the order was communicated on 17 November 2021. Under… Read More ...