All landmark rulings

1. Direct Tax ·ITAT Hyderabad · 26 Feb 2022
   Mere fact of the impugned addition having been made on protective basis would hardly provide any relief to the assessee in light of the overwhelming factual possession supporting the Revenue’s case.

   Nancy Divakar Hospital & Research Centre Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)

   (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28466 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)

2. Direct Tax ·ITAT Surat · 26 Feb 2022
   Section 139 cannot mean only section 139(1) but it means all sub-sections of section 139.

   Sabbirbhai Dawoodbhai Shaikh Vs Income Tax Officer

   (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28465 (ITAT-SURAT)

3. Direct Tax ·Bombay High Court · 26 Feb 2022
   Project for which permission was subsequently granted was different from the one for which IOD was obtained earlier, therefore no substantial question of law arose in the case.

   Abode Builders Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

   (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28464 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 80-IB(10)

4. Direct Tax ·Rajasthan High Court · 26 Feb 2022
   If the CBDT circular is not read-down as to remove the rigors of the cut off date by holding that the same is not sacrosanct the same may suffer from vice of arbitrariness.

   Rakesh Garg Vs Principal Comissioner Of Income Tax

   (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28463 (HC-RAJASTHAN)

5. Direct Tax ·Delhi High Court · 26 Feb 2022
   Revenue is directed to decide the rectification application filed by Assessee under Section 154 in accordance with law by way of a reasoned order within six weeks and in the event of a refund, grant the same within the said period with interest.

   Nokia India Private Limited Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 16(1), & ORS

   (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28462 (HC-DELHI)

6. Direct Tax ·ITAT Bangalore · 26 Feb 2022
   Mere application of whole or some part of the income from the construction business for charitable purposes would not render the business itself being considered as incidental to the attainment of the objects.

   Zilla Nirmiti Kendra Vs ACIT

   (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28461 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 11

7. Direct Tax ·ITAT Mumbai · 26 Feb 2022
   The consideration received by the assessee on sale of transferable development rights not chargeable to tax under the head capital gain in view of the fact that there is no cost of acquisition.

   Kirit Raojibhai Patel Vs The Income Tax Officer

   (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28460 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

8. Direct Tax ·ITAT Delhi · 26 Feb 2022
   There is nothing on record to rebut the correctness of cash deposited in the bank account held with HDFC bank, the addition sustained by the learned CIT(Appeals) cannot be confirmed.

   Naresh Sharma Vs Income-tax Officer

   (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28459 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 69C

9. Direct Tax ·ITAT Mumbai · 26 Feb 2022
   No adjustment to ALP is required to be made in the instant case in respect of import of finished goods in either case. Accordingly, the adjustment made is hereby directed to be deleted.

   M/S KELLOGG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 15 (2) (1) MUMBAI

   (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28458 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95768&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

10. Direct Tax ·ITAT Delhi · 26 Feb 2022
    The existence of belief has to be bonafide and has to be based on material which is relevant hence specific in nature. The basis of the belief should be discernable from the facts on record and ascertainable with regard to the escapement of income.

    ACIT, CIRCLE, ROHTAK VERSUS SMT. RAVI PARKASH AGGARWAL AND VICE-VERSA

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28457 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95770&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

11. Direct Tax ·ITAT Amritsar · 26 Feb 2022
    Service of notice in case of an assessee residing abroad, by affixing the same on the main door of his local residence in India is not a valid service.

    BRIJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (3) , BATHINDA

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28456 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95772&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

12. Direct Tax ·Bombay High Court · 26 Feb 2022
    CBDT has not extended the time-limit for passing any order under Section 144C(13) of the Act vide Notification No.74/2021 dated 25th June 2021, and hence, there is no extension of time-limit to 30th September 2021 to pass the order under Section 144C(13).

    SHELL INDIA MARKETS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28454 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86641&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

13. Direct Tax ·Calcutta High Court · 26 Feb 2022
    Assessing officer could not have based his conclusion solely on the alleged admission of the director of the assessee during the survey operations

    PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA VERSUS D.K. BASAK JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28453 (HC-CALCUTTA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86644&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

14. Direct Tax ·Calcutta High Court · 25 Feb 2022
    CBDT by its order dt. Sep 28,2021, to avoid genuine hardship to assessees, authorised the admission of application for settlement filed after Jan 31, 2021 but before Sep 30, 2021 and treat such applications as valid and process them as pending application as per Section 245A(eb).

    Pradeep Kumar Naredi Vs Union of India & Ors.

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28452 (HC-CALCUTTA)

15. Direct Tax ·Bombay High Court · 25 Feb 2022
    The Assessing Officer was duty bound to provide all the documents called for by petitioner and his reluctance to provide these documents only would make the court draw adverse inference against respondent.

    Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Vs Asistant Commisioner of Income Tax

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28451 (HC-BOMBAY)

16. Direct Tax ·ITAT Mumbai · 25 Feb 2022
    Application of Section 69C is far-fetched.

    EIPR India Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28450 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 69C

17. Direct Tax ·ITAT Jabalpur · 25 Feb 2022
    The argument of giving cognizance to the returned income de hors the audited accounts, which is admittedly higher than the presumptive rate u/s. 44AE, can hardly have the sanction of law.

    AMBIKA TRANSPORT CO. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-DAMOH (M.P.)

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28449 (ITAT-JABALPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95760&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

18. Direct Tax ·ITAT Mumbai · 25 Feb 2022
    We do not find any infirmity in the well reasoned order of ld.CIT(A) on the merits of the case. Hence, we uphold his order in this regard and revenue’s appeal stands dismissed.

    ITO-6 (2) (2) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. KLEEM CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CRYSTAL ACQUA BOTTLING PVT. LTD.) AND (VICE-VERSA)

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28448 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95762&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

19. Direct Tax ·ITAT Ahmedabad · 25 Feb 2022
    Notwithstanding addition of assessee’s income on account of undervaluation of closing stock in the absence of any circumstances justifying the interference that assessee has consciously concealed its income, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not warranted.

    M/S. SHETH SHIP BREAKING CORPORATION VERSUS JT. CIT, RANGE-1, BHAVNAGAR

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28447 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95763&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

20. Direct Tax ·Bombay High Court · 25 Feb 2022
    The order impugned in this petition is quashed and set aside.

    TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 (3) (1) AND ORS.

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28446 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86633&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.