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 Supreme Court of India has held that M/s Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. Versus Union of India and others CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3821 OF 2020 (Arising from S.L.P.(Civil) No.10613/2020) Forum-Supreme Court of India Sub-Ultra Vires of Section 40(a)(iib) challenged before High court-not entertained by High court- held by Supreme Court to be not sustainable. The State Government undertaking in the above… Read More ...
The Delhi High Court has held that *Tata Teleservices Limited Vs The Pr CIT & Another* *Court- Delhi High Court* *Date-19/11/2020* *Sub- Claim of refund out of ad hoc payment made towards 20% of demand for a number of years , pursuant to favourable decision in some of the years * The Delhi High court in the above was dealing with a… Read More ...
The Allahabad High Court has held that Case:S K Srivastava, IRS(Retd) Vs CBI & Ors Court-Allahabad High Court Date-04/11/2020 Sub: Charges against the Commissioner (Appeals) u/s 120B and 420 of IPC and 482 of CrPC for various acts including antedating of 13 orders as well as deciding appeals which were not within his jurisdiction in collusion with a Chartered Accountant. The Allahabad… Read More ...
The ITAT BANGALORE - SMC BENCH has held that Whether the AO can resort to rectification under section 154 to make a disallowance u/s 40A(3) when the order under section 143(3) has been passed after due scrutiny of accounts. Held NO Whether the amendment to Rule 6DD(j) which provided for residual exceptional cases from 1995 onwards has resulted in making the plea of commercial… Read More ...
The ITAT Mumbai A Bench has held that When the return of income and the assessed income are same, the machinery provision for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) fails, as the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is levied with reference to the tax sought to be evaded, which is the difference between the income returned and that assessed by the A.O. The Hon'ble Delhi High… Read More ...
The Delhi High court has held that Agilent Technologies Private Limited Vs ACIR Circle1(2), New Delhi Date -05/11/2020 Delhi High Court Subject:Appeal effect order not being passed and consequent refund order not being issue. The petition in the above case challenged the inaction on part of the AO to the appeal effect orders for AY 2006-07 and issue consequent refund order of… Read More ...
The THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY has held that Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India issued an ordinance called ‘Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020’ (briefly ‘the Ordinance’ hereinafter). As per section 3 of the said Ordinance any time-limit specified in or prescribed or notified under any of the Specified Acts, such as the Income Tax Act 1961,… Read More ...
The ITAT Mumbai Bench has held that Tribunal held that where there was no transfer of shares but only a pledge of shares for purposes of obtaining a loan and revenue not disputed the fact of return of loan and also receipt of pledged shares creditor, no capital gain could be charged. Only income was actually received or accrued upon sale of… Read More ...
The ITAT Mumbai Bench has held that The onus was upon the Assessing Officer to prove that the assessee received “on money” on sale of the property. The onus to claim that apparent is not real is on one who so claims. When the Assessing Officer requires the assessee to show-cause as to why there is difference between two purchasers and that… Read More ...
The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that In course of search, note book and lose paper were found and seized. The assessee did not offer the unaccounted cash receipts as found recorded in the seized documents. The Assessee followed project completion method of accounting and offered it to tax in the year of completion of project. It was held, the receipts in… Read More ...