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 Delhi High Court has held that The assessee received subscription fee of Rs. 18,65,00,000 from Indian subscribers for the use of its legal database called "Lexis Nexis" which enables Indian subscribers to access judgments, articles, legislations and other research material relevant to the legal field. The income earned from subscription fee is in the nature of ‗business income‘ and in the… Read More ...
The Supreme Court has held that S. 147 Reopening Guidelines The Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP filed by the Department against the guidelines laid down by the Delhi High Court in matters of reopening of assessments "We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. Hence, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed."… Read More ...
The ITAT Delhi has held that First proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) categorically provides that where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, the stamp duty value on the date of the agreement maybe taken for the purpose of this provision. Admittedly, the agreement fixing… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions-Wilful attempt to evade tax- Death of managing partner-Failure to pay self assessment tax-Tax and interest was paid before launching of prosecution-Delay of eight years in depositing the tax and interest-Launching of prosecution is quashed. [S. 220, 276(2), 277, 278B, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S. 482] The appellant is… Read More ...
The ITAT, Panaji, Goa has held that Interest attributable to borrowings irrespective of its nature and type utilized in creating Capital assets or Capital-WIP which is yet to put to use/operation or commercial production therefrom yet to start has rightly subjected to disallowance by virtue of proviso to section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. From the assessment year 2004, in creating any capital… Read More ...
The Madras High Court has held that Assessee LLC, incorporated in USA became eligible for refund of Rs.2,19,51,010/- vide an intimation u/s. 143(1) of IT Act on 21.03.2022. Since refund was not granted, petitioner raised a grievance with CPC on 22.04.2022, that it is unable to input the SWIFT code and IBAN as per Sl.No.13.b. of the ITR. Eventually, after being informed… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice- Assessment year 2013-14-Six years expired on 31st March, 2020-Notice issued on 28th July, 2022-Notice issued beyond six years-Barred by limitation-Taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain provisions, Act, 2020 (TOLA) has not applicable for the Assessment year 2013-14-Instructions are not binding on… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment -Disallowance of claim under section 54 of the Act-Levy of penalty is not justified. [S. 54] The assessee made an investment in SRA project and claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act . The claim was disallowed and the assessee has not filed an appeal against the disallowance. The Assessing… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Bogus purchases-Estimate of income-Ex-parte order-Penalty is deleted-Tribunal also observed that when the necessary facts and circumstances and material on the basis of which, the issue in the appeal has to be decided, are already on record, this Tribunal would be slow in directing such remand which may ultimately lead to multiplicity of… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Expenditure incurred for renovation of school building and payment of taxes - Allowable as application of income though the assessee is not owner of the building. [S. 11(1)(a)] The appellant had incurred an expenditure on repairs/renovation of the school building and towards payment of property taxes.… Read More ...