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.
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…
Honda Trading Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT/ ACIT
The assessee, Honda Trading Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., filed its return of income for AY 2021-22 declaring total income of Rs. 9,78,20,290/-. The case was selected for Complete Scrutiny through CASS. The assessee was primarily engaged in …
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…
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. S S Group (P) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)
The relevant facts giving rise to these appeals are that the appellant assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs.30,12,79,256/- and Rs.35,18,94,170/- in AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively on acquired/created goodwill pursuant to the scheme o…
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…
Jaipal Vs. ITO
The case involves an assessment order passed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 22/03/2016, where the Assessing Officer made certain additions and computed the income of the assessee at Rs. 80,56,680/-. The assessee had filed…
Express Freight Railway Consortium vs. DCIT
This appeal is filed by the assessee, Express Freight Railway Consortium, against the final assessment order dated 27.03.2025 passed under sections 144, 260, and 144B of the Income Tax Act. The assessee raised several grounds of appeal, inc…
Smt. Urmila Dhelia v/s Income Tax Officer
The assessee, Smt. Urmila Dhelia, a member of the MIG Co-operative Housing Society (Bandra East), Group IV Ltd, entered into a tripartite development agreement dated 17.09.2010 with M/s. Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and Rustomjee Constructio…
Manisha Devnani Vs. INT Tax Ward 2(1)(1)
This appeal was filed by Manisha Devnani against the assessment order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Income-tax Officer (International Taxation), Ward 1(1), Mumbai, under section 147 read with section 144C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, fo…
Kalpana Nitin Shah Vs. ITO 19(2)(2)
The assessee, Kalpana Nitin Shah, did not file her return of income for the relevant year. Information in the NMS Module indicated that she sold an immovable property for Rs. 55,00,000/- during AY 2011-12. Since no ITR was filed within the …
Efkon India Private Limited vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1)(2)
The assessee, Efkon India Private Limited, filed its return of income declaring a total loss of Rs. 2,35,22,245. The return was selected for scrutiny, and after issuing notices and obtaining necessary information, the Assessing Officer (AO)…
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…
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…