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

J. Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. v. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Salary paid to staff/ spouse and professional fees-Disallowance is restricted to 30%.[S. 40(a)(ia),143(3)] The AO disallowed the salary paid to spouse of the employees. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowances to 30 % of gross receipts. The Tribunal afformed the order of the CIT(A). (ITA Nos. 4147 to 4153 & 4585 to… Read More ...

Western Arch Developers v. Pr. CIT (Bombay High Court)

The Bombay High Court has held that S. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes-Profits and gains from housing projects-Condonation of delay-Genuine hardship-Delay in filing of return of income-Genuine hardship-Claim for deduction under section 80IBA-Delay of 45 days due to illness of managing partner- Rejection not justified. [S. 80IBA, 119(2(b), 139, Art. 226] The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in construction, received a… Read More ...

Skyway Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd v. DCIT (Bombay High Court)

The Bombay High Court has held that S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-ITAT has not dealt with the issue of Document Identification Number (DIN)-Failure to decide Cross objection-Search-Assessment order without-Not uploaded on portal before limitation-Violation of CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 dt. 14th August, 2019-Bogus purchases-Un secured loan-Assessment was not uploaded on Portal before the expiry of limitation-Screen shots-Miscellaneous application was rejected… Read More ...

PCIT vs. ZULU MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED (Calcutta High Court)

The Calcutta High Court has held that Bogus Capital Gains from Penny Stocks: Surrounding circumstances have to be taken note of & the test of human probabilities have to be applied. Though the shares were sold in the normal course of business through shares brokers in Demat Form in stock exchanges & payment were made through banking channel, the capital gains can… Read More ...

Krishnagopal B. Nangpal v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Bombay High Court)

The Bombay High Court has held that Sale proceeds of one residential house, used for purchase of multiple residential houses qualifies for exemption under Section 54(1) of the Income-tax Act prior to its amendment by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 (i) The amendment brought in by Finance (No.2) Act 2014 to section 54 makes the position clear that after the amendment, the… Read More ...

HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD VERSUS ADIT (SUPREME COURT)

The Supreme Court has held that Permanent Establishment: One of the sine qua non for a fixed place PE is that the place through which the business is carried on must be 'at the disposal' of the enterprise. The degree of control and supervision exercised, and the presence of ownership, management, or operational authority have to be seen. On facts, the… Read More ...

Dadha Pharma LLP Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Madras High Court)

The Madras High Court has held that S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Central Circle-Notice issued by jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO ) rather than the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO)- Notice and consequential order under section 148A(d) is quashed and set aside - Liberty is granted to the Revenue to seek revival if the Supreme Court later reverses the… Read More ...

Subhash Chander Oberoi v. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed Dividend - Advance received from closely held company by its shareholder - Holding more than 10% -Commercial transaction - Not assessable as deemed dividend. Assessee was holding 35% shares in the company, which had two subsidiary companies. A foreign entity wanted to purchase stake in the company but was not interested… Read More ...

PCIT v. Pacific Organics Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court)

The Bombay High Court has held that S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Notice must specify the charge- Notice must be precise and there should be no room for ambiguity- Veena Estate (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2024] 158 taxmann.com 341 / 461 ITR 483 (Bom.)(HC), distinguished- Order of Tribunal is affirmed. [S. 260A] The ITAT held that the penalty show cause notice was ambiguous, as… Read More ...

Balaram Chainrai vs International Taxation, Ward (ITAT Mumbai) [ITA No. 1074/Mum/2025]

The Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT has held that Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT held that addition of alleged penny stock shall not be made in case of a regular investor on the basis of information from investigation wing. Facts: Assessee’s case has been reopened on the basis of information received from investigation wing that allegedly the assessee has done trading in penny stocks namely M/s.… Read More ...