Browse Tax Judgements
Showing 1–20 of 22 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.
Alfa Modern Mobiles Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO
The assessee company is engaged in the trading of mobile phones and filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 08.11.2017, declaring total income at INR 8,38,870/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS on the issue of abn…
AT & T Global Network Services India Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)
The assessee, AT & T Global Network Services India Private Limited, filed an appeal against the order of the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Faridabad, dated 23.03.2025, which arose out of an assessment order dated 17…
Sachin Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-13, Delhi
In this case, a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted on 03.03.2020, wherein unexplained cash in foreign currency was found in Shri Sachin's possession at IGI Airport. The assessment was complete…
Braham Singh Vs Income Tax Officer/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi
In this case, the Assessing Officer had information that the assessee had purchased a time deposit of Rs.75 lakhs with Oriental Bank of Commerce and further an amount of Rs.81,08,342/- was credited in the assessee’s account under section 19…
Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. DCIT, Exemption Circle
The Ghaziabad Development Authority filed its return of income on 14.3.2022 declaring NIL income. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment on 27.12.2022, adding Rs. 127,41,46,000/- transferred to the development fund to the income of …
Kanpur Development Authority Vs. JCIT Exemption Range Ghaziabad
The assessee, Kanpur Development Authority, is an authority notified under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning (Development and Registration) Act 1973. It is tasked with promoting and securing the development of the area according to plan. The…
M/s. Shree Raj Mahal Gems Private Limited Vs. DCIT Central Circle – 6
This appeal is filed by the assessee, M/s. Shree Raj Mahal Gems Private Limited, against the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-24, New Delhi dated 17.07.2025 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessee raised several grounds of appeal, including the…
Anil Kr. Jain vs. DCIT
The assessee, Anil Kumar Jain, filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14 declaring a total income of Rs.13,24,680/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the income was assessed at …
M/s. R.M. Bhuther and Co. Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre
The assessee, M/s. R.M. Bhuther and Co., a partnership firm, filed its original return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 declaring total income at Rs.Nil. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Th…
Laxmi Kashinath Thanekar v/s Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)
The assessee, Laxmi Kashinath Thanekar, filed a return declaring a total income of Rs. 4,10,584/-. Based on information regarding the sale of immovable property, a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act was issued. The Assessing Off…
Balaram Nama Gaikwad vs IIO, Ward – 3(1), Kalyan
These two appeals by assessee, Balaram Nama Gaikwad, are directed against the separate orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] both dated 26.06.2025 for Assessment years (AY) 2014-15 & 2016-17 respectively. The a…
Shree Capital Services Ltd. Vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-5(1), Kolkata
The assessee, Shree Capital Services Ltd., is a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) engaged in providing loans and making investments in shares and securities. The assessee filed its return of income computing total income at ₹116,67,19,27…
Sandhya Saha
The assessee, Sandhya Saha, an individual, did not file her return of income for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. It was noticed that she had made cash deposits in her bank account amounting to Rs.20,99,414/- for AY 2013-14 and Rs.…
Sanjay Kumar Gupta Vs. ACIT
A search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted on Sanjay Kumar Gupta on 05.11.2020, resulting in the seizure of cash amounting to ₹1,35,29,300/-. The assessee is engaged in the transportation business and has been filing ret…
M/s. Sanjay Enterprises Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Raichur
The assessee, M/s. Sanjay Enterprises, had not filed its return of income. Based on information available in the AIMS module of the ITBA, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 7,10,000/- in the savings…
Harish Bansal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 36(4), New Delhi
The assessee, Harish Bansal, filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 on 30.10.2017 declaring an income of Rs.8,21,830/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and a notice under section 143(2) dated 16.8.2018 was issued. Fur…
Kishan Lal Vs. The NFAC
The assessee, Kishan Lal, was robbed on the highway and an addition of Rs 50,00,000 was made on account of alleged unexplained cash. The robbers were caught with Rs 30,38,000, and they admitted having looted Rs 50,00,000. Kishan Lal verifie…
Indane Bottling Plant Loading and Unloading, Labour Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
The present appeal arises from an order under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 24.02.2025. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed…
Tajpur S.K.U.S Ltd. Vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru
The assessee, Tajpur S.K.U.S Ltd., filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi, which was passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-19. The appeal wa…
Maruti Multichem Pvt. Ltd. vs. The DCIT
The assessee, Maruti Multichem Pvt. Ltd., filed its Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,79,06,740/-. The case was reopened on the basis that the assessee had received bogus loans and advances f…