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 Gujarat High Court has held that S. 147 : Reassessment-Validity of notices issued under old regime after 01.04.2021-Limitation and sanction under new regime- Considering the surviving time available-limitation under S.149 had expired or sanction under S.151 of appropriate authority was lacking, the reassessment notices were invalid. [S. 148, 148A, 149, 151, Art. 226] The assessee challenged notices issued u/s 148 (old… Read More ...
The SUPREME COURT has held that S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice- Faceless regime – Jurisdiction of JAO – Notice after three years-Sanction of Specified Authority-Approval to be obtained from Principal Chief Commissioner-Approval from Principal Commissioner-Sanction is invalid-Order and consequent notice is invalid S. 148 - SLP of revenue was dismissed for failure to explain the… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 12A : Registration-Trust or institution-Delay in filing audit report- Condonation of delay in filing Form 10B-Justice oriented approach should prevail over a pedantic one-Delay of 27 days condoned-Order of Commissioner (E) was set aside. [S. 11, 12, 119, Form No. 10B, Art. 226] The assessee, Damani Research Foundation of Medical Sciences, filed a writ… Read More ...
The Rajasthan High Court has held that S. 149 : Reassessment-Time barring-First proviso-Faceless regime-Jurisdiction of AO-Notice held barred by limitation and without jurisdiction. [S. 80IA, 133A, 143(3), 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 151A, Art. 226] The assessee, engaged in manufacture and sale of cement, filed ROI for AY 2017–18 claiming deduction u/s 80IA on profits from SWM, WTS and NIPU. The claim was examined… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 149 : Reassessment-Time barring-First proviso-Notice issued beyond six years-Fifth proviso not applicable-Notice quashed. [S. 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d) , 149(1)(b).] The assessee, a contractor, had sold immovable property in AY 2015–16 but did not file a return. Based on information from the Sub-Registrar, the AO issued a notice u/s 148A(b) on 24-03-2022, passed an… Read More ...
The Delhi Tribunal has held that S. 147 : Reassessment-Long-term capital gains-Addition on issue forming reasons for reopening deleted by CIT(A)-Reassessment held invalid.[S. 68, 69, 10(38), Expl. 3 to S. 147, 148, 255(4)] The assessee, a Government employee, filed a return declaring salary income. Based on an Investigation Wing report, the AO reopened the assessment u/s 147 alleging receipt of ₹9.60… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 250 : Appeal - Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure - Second order passed in same appeal-Faceless regime-Cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on Department. [ITAT Rules, 1963, R. 32A(2)] The assessee’s appeal for AY 2013–14 against additions made u/s 143(3) had been allowed by the CIT(A)-7 vide order dated 22.01.2018 in physical mode. Subsequently, after the introduction… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 68 : Cash credits-Long term capital gain-Penny stock-Sale of shares-Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd.-Kappac Pharma Ltd.-Acquired at Rs. 12 and sold at Rs. 720 per share-Abnormal price rise-General investigation report-Cash purchase and late dematerialization-No cogent evidence of genuine transaction – Addition upheld. [S. 10(38), 115BBE, 131, 133(6)] The assessee claimed exemption u/s 10(38) on LTCG… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 56 : Income from other sources-Share premium-Valuation under DCF method-AO cannot substitute or reject valuation done by a prescribed valuer without authority-Projection variations with actuals cannot be a ground to disregard valuation-Deletion of addition justified. [S. 56(2)(viib), 11UA(2)(b)] The assessee issued shares at a premium of ₹10 per share based on a Chartered Accountant’s… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) has held that S. 254 r.w. R. 35: Though the assessee can be represented before the ITAT by an authorized representative, the order has to be served upon the assessee directly. A service of the order upon the authorized representative is not good service (i) The assessee is permitted to be represented in any proceedings before any Income… Read More ...