Delhi High Court held that section 153C of the Income Tax Act doesn’t required AO to find or uncover a relationship or an association between the searched and the non-searched person.
ITAT Mumbai held that the very basis of which the Assessing Officer formed the belief that the income liable to tax is escaped assessment was based upon incorrect understanding of the facts and is, therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law.
ITAT Pune rules mere execution of a development agreement without transfer of possession doesn’t trigger capital gains tax. Follows Bombay HC precedent.
Janata Grahak Madhyawarti Vs PCIT-4 (ITAT Pune) Facts of the Case: The assessee, a co-operative society involved in the business of wholesale supply of consumer goods, filed its return declaring income of ₹5,50,400. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer later disallowed a deduction of ₹34,58,980 claimed under […]
Kerala HC declares provisions under CGST & KGST Acts as unconstitutional for taxing services rendered by medical associations to their members.
Delhi High Court held that once addition on the basis of which reasons recorded for reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act has been deleted, then, other addition made are not sustainable in law. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Delhi High Court held that matters having financial liabilities or penal consequences cannot be kept unresolved for years. Thus, show cause notice issued in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2018 adjudicated vide order issued in 2024 is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Kolkata held that assumption of jurisdiction to impugned assessment under faceless assessment scheme prior to 29.03.2022 when provisions of section 151A of the Income Tax Act had not come into operation is not sustainable and without jurisdiction. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
Gujarat High Court held that issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, after six months from the end of financial year in which return u/s. 139(1) was filed, is barred by limitation and cannot be sustained.
NCLT Mumbai held that the Advance received by the Corporate Debtor against future supply of goods is an Operational Debt. Petition u/s. 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code admitted since Corporate Debtor failed to pay operational debt.
