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

PCIT v. Ashwin Purshotam Bajaj (Bombay High Court)

The High Court of Bombay has held that Facts of the case During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer, after considering the depositions and affidavits filed before the Sales Tax Authority, came to a conclusion that the entities from whom the assessee had made purchases were only indulged in bogus accommodation entries without supply of goods. Accordingly, the purchases amounting to… Read More ...

PCIT v. Indravadan Jain, HUF (Bombay High Court)

The BOMBAY HIGH COURT has held that S. 45 : Capital gains -Penny Stock-Cash credits –Accommodation entries - DMAT account and contract note showed details of share transaction- Assessing Officer had not proved said transaction as bogus, capital gain earned on said transaction cannot be treated as cash credits - Addition as cash credit was deleted- Order of Tribunal allowing the exemption… Read More ...

PCIT v. N.S. Software (Delhi High Court)

The High Court of Delhi has held that Facts of the case During previous year relevant to A.Y. 2005-06, the assessee had taken loan from the bank. During the period spanning between A.Y. 2005-06 to A.Y. 2011-12, interest on loan paid by the assessee to the bank was allowed as deductible expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is only… Read More ...

ACIT v. Ashok W. Wesavkar (TM) (ITAT Mumbai)

The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 2(14)(iii) : Capital asset-Agricultural land-Sale of agricultural land -Land revenue record shown as “Lagavadi Yogya Sherta“ (Cultivable land)-Vegetables and minor millets grown-Land situated in Raigad District-No condition is prescribed under the provision of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act that active agricultural activity should be there at the time of sale of the land-Only condition… Read More ...

PCIT v. Indravadan Jain, HUF (Bombay High Court)

The High Court of Bombay has held that Facts The assessee had claimed exemption under section 10(38) in respect of long-term capital gain earned from sale of shares of a scrip. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the said scrip was a penny stock and the broker through whom the transaction by way of sale of shares was effected by… Read More ...

PCIT Vs Axis Bank Ltd (Gujarat High Court)

The Gujarat High Court has held that Court explained ratio of Supreme Court decisions of Mak Data 2013(38) taxmann.com, 448. (SC) and Reliance Petro 2010(189) Taxman 322 (SC) while answering question on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) proposed by Revenue . Read More ...

Punjab Plastic Waste Management Society v. CIT(E) (ITAT CHANDIGARH)

The CHANDIGARH TRIBUNAL has held that S. 12AA : Procedure for registration-Trust or institution-Plastic Waste Management-Preservation of Environment as defined in Section 2(15) of the Act-Eligible for exemption-Denial of registration is not valid. [S. 2(15), 11, 12A, 12AA(1)(b)(ii), Form No. 10A, Constitution of India Art, 14, 19 and 21, 47, 48-A, 51-A(g), Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Water (Prevention and Control… Read More ...

ACIT CIR 6(1)-2, MUMBAI VS ASAHI INFRA & PROJECTS LIMITED (ITAT Mumbai)

The MUMBAI ITAT has held that 4 Keeping in view the fact that the assessee is corporate assessee and subjected to statutory audits and therefore, the books could not rejected in a light manner, the matter stand remitted back to the file of Ld. AO for readjudication with a direction to the assessee to substantiate the transactions carried out by him… Read More ...

ACIT CIR 6(1) VS ASAHI INFRA & PROJECTS LIMITED (ITAT Mumbai)

The MUMBAI ITAT has held that We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts of the case. We find that the AO has applied the provisions of section 44AD and 44AF of the Act in assessing assessee’s income of Rs.40,81,308/- under totally misunderstanding of facts and law. We find that the assessee’s total turnover is at Rs.20,40,65,412/- and… Read More ...

ITO CIR 6(1)-4 VS ASAHI INFRA & PROJECTS LIMITED (ITAT Mumbai)

The MUMBAI ITAT has held that It is clear from the above findings of CIT(A) that AO has not followed guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft Ltd., accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for holding that reopening was not valid. Read More ...