Browse Tax Judgements
Showing 21–40 of 65 judgements · Browse by section & bench
Free to read — no signup required. Every judgement includes the facts, legal issues, outcome and related cases. Create a free account for AI chat, drafting and workspaces.
Murtuza Kothari vs. ITO, Ward-19(2)(2)
The assessee, Murtuza Kothari, did not file his return of income for the Assessment Year 2015-16. He sold an immovable property for Rs. 86,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) selected the case for scrutiny under section 147 of the Income T…
Mr. Akil Abbas Rassai Vs. DCIT Circle-22(1)
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, whereby the penalty of Rs.16,05,922/- levied under section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for …
Milan Theatres P. Ltd. vs. DCIT Circle 12(3)(2)
The assessee, Milan Theatres P. Ltd., is engaged in real estate development and constructed a shopping complex known as 'Milan Mall'. Originally comprising 24 units, the mall was restructured into 179 units plus one theatre. The assessee co…
Maharashtra Corporation Limited Vs. ITO Ward 4(2)(1)
The assessee, Maharashtra Corporation Limited, is a company engaged in trading textile goods. It filed its return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 declaring a total income of Rs. 98,130/-. Based on information received by the Assessing Officer re…
Maersk Tankers India Private Limited Vs. ACIT Circle
The assessee, Maersk Tankers India Private Limited, is a resident company and part of the Maersk Tankers Group, operating in the product tanker industry. For A.Y. 2022–23, the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs…
Ladderup Finance Limited vs. Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai
The assessee, Ladderup Finance Limited, is a company engaged in investment and finance and financial and management consultancy. It filed its return of income for the year 2015-16 declaring a total income of Rs. 73,59,060/-. The case was se…
Kshitij Interiors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT- Circle
The assessee, Kshitij Interiors Pvt. Ltd., is a company engaged in interior decoration works. For the Assessment Year 2017-18, the assessee filed its original return of income declaring total income of Rs. 1,61,91,500/-. A survey action und…
Jewelex India Private Limited v/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
The assessee, Jewelex India Private Limited, filed an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, pertaining to the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the …
JCIT (OSD) in charge of DCIT, Circle-1(3)(1), Mumbai Vs. Geopreneur Realty Private Limited
The assessee, Geopreneur Realty Private Limited, filed its return of income on 01.03.2019 reporting a total loss at Rs.59,20,072/-. The assessee is engaged in the business of real estate development and construction. The case involves two l…
Jamnadas Virji Shares & Stock Brokers Private Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
The assessee, Jamnadas Virji Shares & Stock Brokers Private Ltd, is a company engaged in stock broking. It filed its returns of income for the assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18. The assessments were reopened based on i…
Jagruti Bharat Shah Vs. Income tax Officer-19(3)(1), Mumbai
This appeal was filed by the assessee, Jagruti Bharat Shah, against the order of ADDL/JCIT (A)-2, Lucknow, dated 26.09.2025, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the assessment order by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(2)(1), Mumbai, dat…
Jagmeet Singh Sabharwal v/s Commissioner of Income Tax
The case involves an appeal by Jagmeet Singh Sabharwal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, pertaining to an assessment order for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The asses…
Jagannath Co-operative Credit Society vs ITO, Ward -41(1)(2)
The assessee, Jagannath Co-operative Credit Society, filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2016-17. The asse…
ITA No. 4252/Mum/2025
The assessee, ARCIL RETAIL LOAN PORTFOLIO- 001- A TRUST, filed its return of income for A.Y. 2016–17 declaring total income at Rs. NIL and claimed exempt income of Rs. 27,63,75,223/- under section 61 read with section 63 of the Income-tax A…
Income Tax Officer-27(3)(1), Mumbai - 400706 Vs. Savla Associates
The assessee, Savla Associates, a resident partnership firm, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2020-21 declaring a loss of Rs.3,74,132/-. The return was selected for scrutiny, during which the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed…
ITA No.6816/Mum/2025; Avani Azad Parikh, Mumbai
The assessee, Avani Azad Parikh, was a 50% shareholder in a residential flat at Skylark Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., along with her son, Mr. Sujan Azad Parikh. The rights in the property were transferred by issuing share certificates t…
Revenue vs. Nipul Sureshchandra Mehta
The Revenue has appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), dated 26.05.2025, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal arises from an assessment order passed under sect…
Income Tax Officer, Mumbai Vs. Sunita Chaudhary
The assessee, Sunita Chaudhary, is an individual and a Director of certain Private Limited Companies, engaged in trading and investment in shares and securities. During the year under consideration, she sold shares of M/s. First Financial S…
Income Tax Officer vs. Antara Tushar Motiwala
The assessee, Antara Tushar Motiwala, filed her return of income for A.Y. 2017–18 declaring a total income of Rs. 19,05,920/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny due to a large increase in capital. The Assessing Officer noticed a su…
Hindustan Construction Company Limited Vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax
Hindustan Construction Company Limited, a public listed company engaged in civil construction, filed its return of income for AY 2012-13 reporting a total loss. The case was selected for scrutiny, and an assessment order was passed. Subsequ…