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

KANTIBHAI DHARAMSHIBHAI NAROLA Versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD 3(2)(4)

The THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT has held that This judgement covers all previous important judgements on reassessment and also clarifies all important issues and terms w.r.t reassessment namely:- (i)reasons recorded (ii) prima facie material, (iii)The validity of the reopening of the assessment (iv) application of mind by the AO (v)The crucial link between the information and the formation of the belief should be… Read More ...

Sobha Developers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, LTU, Bangalore

The HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA has held that Disallowance made u/s. 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") could not be added to book profits of the assessee u/s. 115JB of the Act. The assessee is a company engaged in financing industrial units in the State of Karnataka. The assessee filed its ROI for A.Y. 2009-10 on 30.09.2011 declaring the book profit… Read More ...

B Kubendran Vs DCIT Chennai

The Madras High Court has held that B.Kubendran Vs DCIT,Chennai Madras High court Date 9th April, 2021 Sub-Whether issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is mandatory for completing search assessment u/s 153A/C of the Income-tax Act,1961- Decision of Hotel Blue Moon (Supreme Court) distinguished. The single bench of Madras high court Justice Dr Anita Sumanth in this case was considering the question of… Read More ...

DCIT Vs Pepsi Foods Limited

The Supreme Court has held that *Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax & Another Vs Pepsi Foods Limited * *Forum-Supreme Court of India* *Date-6th April 2021* *Sub-Constitutional validity of 3rd proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income-tax Act,1961* The Apex Court in a land mark decision held that *the 3rd proviso to Section 254(2A) to be unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of… Read More ...

GE Capital Mauritius Overseas Investments Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

The Delhi High court has held that GE Capital Mauritius Overseas Investments Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax & another Delhi High court Date-26th March 2021 Sub-whether order u/s 241A withholding refund pending completion of scrutiny assessment can be quashed by writ court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Delhi high court in an interesting case as above was dealing… Read More ...

VIRENDER KUMAR VS ITO 1(1) ALWAR ITA NO 1100/JP/2019

The ITAT JAIPUR has held that WHEN SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IS INCLUDED IN TURNOVER OFFERED FOR TAX IN RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 44AD, NO ADDITION IS VALID Read More ...

AMIT KUMAR DEY VS DCIT (ITA NO 5526/DEL/2018)

The ITAT DELHI has held that Enhancement made by the CIT (Appeals) on issues, which were not part of limited scrutiny invalid and in violation to CBDT Instructions . Read More ...

ITO VS MOMENTUM TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD (ITA NO 5802/DEL/2017)

The ITAT DELHI has held that NO REOPENING VALID WHEN TIME LIMIT FOR SCRUTINY PENDING FROM REVISED RETURN FILED UNDER SECTION 139(5) Read More ...

Sinfonia Tradelink Pvt ltd Vs ITO

The Delhi High court has held that Glaring mistakes in reasons recorded in writing, Approval u/s 151 also improper- Delhi High court quashes notice u/s 148 ignoring plea of alternative remedy. Citation-Synfonia Tradelinks Private limited Vs ITO Court- Delhi High court Date-26th March 2021 In a case where there was complete non application of mind not only in the way reasons were… Read More ...

ACIT Vs KUBER KHADAYAN

The ITAT DELHI has held that After distinguishing the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of B.Kishore 273 CTR 0468(Mad) affirmed by Apex Court. Hon'ble Bench of ITAT has held a) statement recorded u/s 132(4) alone cannot be termed as incriminating material it should have nexus with incriminating material b) No assessment can be framed on the basis… Read More ...