ROC Chennai imposed penalties after a company failed to disclose PAN of allottees in a private placement return. The ruling confirms that omissions under Rule 14(6) attract Section 450 penalties, even for voluntary reporting.
Rajesh Todwal S/o Prem Chand Todwal Vs Dgit (Inv.) Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court) Summary: The Rajasthan High Court heard a petition challenging a notice dated 28 March 2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the notice was invalid as it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) […]
The Court held that notices under Sections 148A and 148 issued by the JAO were invalid as the faceless procedure mandated by Section 151A was not followed. All impugned notices and orders were quashed.
The High Court ruled that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notice under Section 148 was issued by the jurisdictional officer instead of through the mandatory faceless mechanism under Section 151A. The Court set aside the notices for non-compliance with statutory procedure.
Court rules partial co-ownership of property constitutes ownership under Section 54F, disallowing exemptions claimed on reinvested capital gains. Tribunal’s earlier allowance set aside.
Reserve Bank has replaced 9445 circulars with a structured set of Master Directions, easing regulatory interpretation and reducing compliance burden for banks and financial institutions.
Mukesh Arvindlal Vakharia Vs ITO (ITAT Surat) ITAT Allows Full 54EC Relief Because Investments Were in Two Financial Years; 54EC Deduction Restored as Advance Money Investment Considered Valid; 54F Claim Denied Because Joint Ownership Counts as Second House; Section 54F Exemption Refused Due to Ownership of Multiple Residences; Expense Deduction Rejected Since Firm Interest Cannot […]
The Tribunal held that joint ownership of multiple residences does not disqualify a taxpayer from Section 54F benefits. It upheld the CIT(A)’s decision allowing the deduction and rejected the Revenue’s reliance on contrary precedent.
Tribunal held that Section 54F allows exemption only for one residential unit. The assessee’s claim for a second flat was rejected, affirming that multiple units do not qualify unless treated as a single house.
The Tribunal held that the assessee established a prima facie case regarding deduction eligibility for habitable-unit expenditure.
