FEED Validator

for Atom and RSS and KML

Congratulations!

This is a valid RSS feed.

Recommendations

This feed is valid, but interoperability with the widest range of feed readers could be improved by implementing the following recommendations.

line 22, column 0: Use of unknown namespace: com-wordpress:feed-additions:1 (11 occurrences) [help]
```
<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">145867742</site>	<item>
```

Source: https://itatonline.org/digest/feed/

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
>
<channel>
<title>Digest of case laws</title>
<atom:link href="https://itatonline.org/digest/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
<link>https://itatonline.org/digest</link>
<description>Online digest of latest case laws</description>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2025 05:04:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
<language>en-US</language>
<sy:updatePeriod>
hourly </sy:updatePeriod>
<sy:updateFrequency>
1 </sy:updateFrequency>
<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.1</generator>
<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">145867742</site> <item>
<title>ACIT v. Dhiraj Parbat Gothi ( Mum)( Trib ) www.itatonline.org .</title>
<link>https://itatonline.org/digest/acit-v-dhiraj-parbat-gothi-mum-trib-www-itatonline-org/</link>
<comments>https://itatonline.org/digest/acit-v-dhiraj-parbat-gothi-mum-trib-www-itatonline-org/#respond</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ksalegal]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2025 04:40:45 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[Income-Tax Act]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://itatonline.org/digest/acit-v-dhiraj-parbat-gothi-mum-trib-www-itatonline-org/</guid>
<description><![CDATA[S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure – Bogus purchases – Information from Investigation Wing – Addition restricted to 4% justified – Additional ground of Revenue to disallowance at 100% of alleged bogus purchases is rejected - No justification for 100% disallowance in absence of suppression of sales –Books of account not rejected – PCIT v. Kanak Impex (India ) Ltd [2025] 172 taxmann.com 283/ 474 ITR 175 (Bom)( HC) is referred . [ S.145, 147 , 148 ]
]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[On the basis of information was received from the Investigation Wing regarding bogus bills from entities linked to Pravin Kumar Jain. The AO disallowed 12.5% of total purchases (₹3.33 crore) as non-genuine, while CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to 4%, considering industry practices and VAT rates. The Revenue has filed an additional ground relying on judgement of Bombay High Court PCIT v. Kanak Impex (India ) Ltd [2025] 172 taxmann.com 283 /474 ITR 175 (Bom)( HC) urging that 100 % of alleged bogus purchases should be confirmed . Dismissing the appeal of the Revenue, and up holding the order of the CIT( A) the Tribunal held that the assessee had filed all relevant documents including purchase bills, stock registers, and bank statements. The AO accepted sales and did not reject books of account. The Tribunal rejected Revenue’s plea for 100% disallowance holding that the Kanak Impex,(Supra) is not applicable due to factual differences (non-cooperation in Kanak Impex vs. full compliance in present case). Followed , Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt Ltd. v. CIT(A) [2015] 372 ITR 619 (Bom) (HC) . (ITA 580/ Mum/ 20025 dt .30 -5 -2025) ( AY. 2007 -08 )
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://itatonline.org/digest/acit-v-dhiraj-parbat-gothi-mum-trib-www-itatonline-org/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">55199</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>Caishen Enterprise LLP v. ACIT ( Bom)( HC) . www.itatonline.org</title>
<link>https://itatonline.org/digest/caishen-enterprise-llp-v-acit-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org/</link>
<comments>https://itatonline.org/digest/caishen-enterprise-llp-v-acit-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org/#respond</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ksalegal]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2025 09:31:50 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[Income-Tax Act]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://itatonline.org/digest/caishen-enterprise-llp-v-acit-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org/</guid>
<description><![CDATA[S. 148A: Reassessment - Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice - Faceless assessment - Notice is issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer – On writ the Court set aside the notice issued under Section 148 and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom- Honourable Court has granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the order simply by moving a Praecipe before this Court- The Court also observed that once the Petition is revived and restored, the same would have to be decided on its own merits considering that several other issues are also raised in challenging the Notice issued under Section 148 [ S. 148 ,Art. 226 ] ]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The assessee filed the writ petition and challenged the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income -Tax Act, 1961 on various grounds. One of the grounds is that the Notice has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer when the law mandates that it has to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer. This is a fatal defect and therefore the Notice has to be quashed. The petitioner relied on Hexaware Technologies Limited v. ACIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225/ 464 ITR 430 / 338 CTR 536 (Bom)(HC ) , The Revenue contended that the said decision has been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court is likely to take up the matter immediately on re-opening. Revenue also fairly stated that there is no stay to the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (Supra) . The Honourable Court followed the jurisdictional High Court and allowed the petition of the assessee and set aside the notice issued under Section 148 and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom. Honourable Court has granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the order simply by moving a Praecipe before this Court. The Court also observed that once the Petition is revived and restored, the same would have to be decided on its own merits considering that several other issues are also raised in challenging the Notice issued under Section 148. (WP L.NO. 19620 of 2025 dt . 7-7 -2025 )( AY. 2019 -20 )
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://itatonline.org/digest/caishen-enterprise-llp-v-acit-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">55185</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>Carona Limited v .DCIT (Bom )( HC) www.itatonline .org</title>
<link>https://itatonline.org/digest/carona-limited-v-dcit-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org/</link>
<comments>https://itatonline.org/digest/carona-limited-v-dcit-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org/#respond</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ksalegal]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2025 08:26:21 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[Income-Tax Act]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://itatonline.org/digest/carona-limited-v-dcit-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org/</guid>
<description><![CDATA[S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Disallowance of deduction- Method of accounting - Plausible interpretation of law - No malafide intention - Disclosed all relevant facts and no false statement –Penalty is deleted . [S. 43B , 145 , 260A ] ]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The assessee claimed a deduction for the unpaid ad-hoc bonus . The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction under Section 43B and imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee’s explanation as plausible and deleted the penalty, finding no malafide intent. In the appeal, the ITAT reversed this, restoring the penalty, holding the claim baseless. On appeal the High Court held that the mere making of an incorrect or unsustainable claim in law does not, by itself, constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Court observed that the assessee had disclosed all relevant facts and made no false statement regarding the bonus payment. The claim for deduction was based on a plausible interpretation of law, even though it was ultimately disallowed. As there was no evidence of concealment or malafide intent, the essential conditions for imposing a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) were not satisfied. Therefore, the Court ruled that the assessee cannot be penalised merely for raising a plausible claim that is later rejected. Relied on CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 /(2010) 11 SCC 762. , distinguished CIT v .Zoom Communication P. Ltd( 2010) 327 ITR 510/ 191 Taxman 179 ( Delhi)( HC ) . (ITA No. 512 OF 2003, dt. 20.06.2025) (AY . 1984-85)
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://itatonline.org/digest/carona-limited-v-dcit-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">55165</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>Bajaj Auto Ltd v Dy. CIT ( Bom)( HC). www.itatonline.org CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd ( Bom)( HC) www.itatonline.org</title>
<link>https://itatonline.org/digest/bajaj-auto-ltd-v-dy-cit-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org-cit-v-reliance-industries-ltd-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org/</link>
<comments>https://itatonline.org/digest/bajaj-auto-ltd-v-dy-cit-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org-cit-v-reliance-industries-ltd-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org/#respond</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ksalegal]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2025 08:02:58 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[Income-Tax Act]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://itatonline.org/digest/bajaj-auto-ltd-v-dy-cit-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org-cit-v-reliance-industries-ltd-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org/</guid>
<description><![CDATA[S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Capital or revenue - Sales Tax Incentive – Purpose test – Incentive for setting up industrial unit in backward area – Sales tax incentive under 1979 and 1983 Schemes is capital receipt, not chargeable to tax.[ S. 28(i), 43B, 1979 Scheme . 1983 Scheme] ]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[For the assessment year 1987–88, Bajaj Auto Ltd. set up a new industrial unit in Waluj, Aurangabad, a backward area designated by the Maharashtra Government. To promote industrial growth in such regions, the State had introduced the 1983 Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, offering eligible businesses either a sales tax exemption or deferral. Bajaj Auto chose the exemption and received an eligibility certificate from SIICOM, granting it benefits worth Rs.31.56 crores for a three-year period starting 1 February 1986. In its tax return, the company treated the incentive as a capital receipt, arguing it subsidized the cost of setting up the unit and was not taxable. However, the Assessing Officer treated it as a revenue receipt, as it became applicable only after production began. This view was upheld by the CIT(A), and although the ITAT provided partial relief, it maintained the incentive was taxable. Bajaj Auto subsequently appealed to the Bombay High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Bombay High Court allowed Bajaj Auto’s appeal, holding that the sales tax exemption received under the state’s incentive scheme qualified as a capital receipt and was not subject to income tax. The Court relied on the “purpose test” established by the Supreme Court in cases in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC), CIT v. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd (2008) 174 Taxman 87 /306 ITR 392 (SC) and CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers ( 2018) 400 ITR 279 / 252 Taxman 360 ( SC) stating that the key to determining the nature of a subsidy lies in its purpose. Since the scheme aimed to promote industrial development in backward areas by supporting the setup of new units, the Court concluded that the incentive was capital in nature, regardless of how or when it was disbursed. Applying the purpose test, the Court found that the 1983 Sales Tax Incentive Scheme was primarily aimed at encouraging industrial development in underdeveloped regions of Maharashtra by promoting capital investment. The Court ruled that although the sales tax exemption was granted after production began, its true purpose was to support the establishment of new industrial units, not regular business operations. Therefore, the method of benefit delivery didn’t alter its nature as a capital receipt. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that such subsidies tied to starting production qualify as capital receipts. Accordingly, Bajaj Auto’s Rs.31.56 crore sales tax incentive was deemed a capital receipt and not taxable income. (ITA No.505 of 2003 dt.3-7 2025 , ITA No. 156 of 2003 dt dt.3-7 2025 )(AY. 1987 -88 )
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://itatonline.org/digest/bajaj-auto-ltd-v-dy-cit-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org-cit-v-reliance-industries-ltd-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">55160</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>Kotak Family Foundation v. CIT( E ) (Bom HC) www.itatonline.org</title>
<link>https://itatonline.org/digest/kotak-family-foundation-v-cit-e-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org/</link>
<comments>https://itatonline.org/digest/kotak-family-foundation-v-cit-e-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org/#respond</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ksalegal]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2025 01:04:25 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[Income-Tax Act]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://itatonline.org/digest/kotak-family-foundation-v-cit-e-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org/</guid>
<description><![CDATA[S. 11 : Income from property held for charitable or religious purposes – Delay in e-verification of audit report – Audit report in Form 10B filed in time- E-verification delayed due to COVID- Delay is not intentional – Delay of 101 or 254 days within permissible limit – Rejection of condonation against principles of substantive justice – Procedural lapses should not override substantive justice, especially when there was no mala fide intent or negligence by the petitioner- Rejection order is quashed – Delay condoned . [S. 12A, 12AA, 80G , Form No 9A, form No 10B , Art.226 ]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Kotak Family Foundation, a charitable trust registered under Sections 12A/12AA and 80G of the Income -Tax Act, 1961, filed its return for AY 2021–22 on 30th December 2021, within the extended COVID-19 timeline. Form 9A was filed and the audit report in Form 10B was uploaded by the auditor on 29th December 2021. However, due to oversight caused by remote working conditions during the pandemic, the Trust failed to e-verify the audit report within the prescribed time. After receiving an intimation under Section 143(1)(a) on 8th September 2022 denying exemption of ₹58,02,006/-, the Trust completed e-verification the next day. Although a revised intimation accepted the return, the exemption was again denied by a rectification order under Section 154 dated 7th March 2023. The Trust’s request for condonation of delay was rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (E) on 10th February 2025. On writ the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the rejection of the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay in e-verifying Form 10B was unjustified and contrary to the principles of justice, equity, and fair play, particularly considering the petitioner is a registered charitable trust. The delay occurred due to genuine inadvertence during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the trustees and staff were operating remotely, and was neither intentional nor negligent. The Court further observed that CBDT Circulars No. 16/2022 and 16/2024 authorize the Commissioner of Income Tax to condone delays of up to 365 days in filing Forms 10B, 9A, 10, and 10BB for AY 2018–19 onwards. In the present case, the delay—whether considered as 254 days or 101 days after applying the benefit of the Supreme Court’s COVID-related extension in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation,was well within the condonable limit. Therefore, the authorities were expected to adopt a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach rather than a technical one. The Court held that procedural lapses should not override substantive justice, especially when there was no mala fide intent or negligence by the petitioner. As the audit report was filed on time and only the e-verification was delayed due to COVID-related issues, the authorities should have adopted a fair and practical approach. Denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12A on such technical grounds was deemed unjust. Referring to its earlier decision in Sau Dwarkabai Tai Karwa Charitable Public Trust v. CIT (E), [2025] 174 taxmann.com 245 ( Bom)( HC), where a similar delay was condoned for the same assessment year, the Court quashed the order dated 10th February 2025, condoned the delay, allowed the writ petition, and made the rule absolute ( W.P. (L) No. 17883 of 2025, decided on 24-06-2025 ) (AY. 2021 -22)
 
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://itatonline.org/digest/kotak-family-foundation-v-cit-e-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">55139</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>Darshan Singh Parmar v. UOI( Bom)( HC) www.itatonline.org</title>
<link>https://itatonline.org/digest/darshan-singh-parmar-v-uoi-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org/</link>
<comments>https://itatonline.org/digest/darshan-singh-parmar-v-uoi-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org/#respond</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ksalegal]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2025 05:22:56 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[GST Law]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://itatonline.org/digest/darshan-singh-parmar-v-uoi-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org/</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax , Act, 2017
S. 73; Demands and Recovery - Tax evasion- Reward for providing information related to tax evasions – Reward determined but not paid by the government –Reward scheme should be operated fairly and avoid frivolous objections – Government directed to pay the reward with interest in case of delay.- Circular GR No.STA-2004/CR-103 Taxation -2 dt -5-6 -2007 . [ S. 74 ]
]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The petitioner, a 64-year-old Mumbai resident, sought a reward for providing information regarding tax evasion since 1992, which aided in recoveries from Public Sector Oil Companies and Fisherman Co-operative Societies under a circular/resolution dated 01 January 1976. Despite court orders, the government authorities delayed payment by citing appeals, irrevocable revenue needs, and a disproven Form-A issue. The Bombay High Court confirmed a Rs. 12.93 crore recovery under the 2019 Amnesty Scheme due to the petitioner’s information, setting a reward of Rs. 19,44,802. The court emphasized that the government must operate its reward scheme fairly and transparently, ensuring informers who take risks are not made to struggle for rightful payments, and that unreasonable delays or frivolous objections to avoid legitimate payments must cease. The court ordered payment of the determined reward within six weeks from June 24, 2025, with an 8% per annum interest for delays, to be recovered from the responsible officers. It also directed the Sales Tax Commissioner and Finance Secretary to finalise the full reward amount within six months and disburse it within two months thereafter, maintaining transparency. The petitioner may accept the payment under protest and pursue additional claims legally. ( W.P No. 2283 of 2013 dt. 24-06-2025)
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://itatonline.org/digest/darshan-singh-parmar-v-uoi-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">55130</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>Skytech Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd. v Joint Commissioner of State Tax Nodal ( Bom)( HC) www.itatonline.org</title>
<link>https://itatonline.org/digest/skytech-rolling-mill-pvt-ltd-v-joint-commissioner-of-state-tax-nodal-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org/</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ksalegal]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2025 06:11:29 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[GST Law]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://itatonline.org/digest/skytech-rolling-mill-pvt-ltd-v-joint-commissioner-of-state-tax-nodal-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org/</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax (MGST Act), 2017
S: 83: Provisional attachment to protect revenue in certain cases – Cash credit accounts – Not a property of the account holder – Cannot be attached provisionally u/s 83- Directed to withdraw the attachment within 24 hours . [S.83(1), Art. 226]
]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The petitioner’s cash credit account with ICICI Bank was provisionally attached under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax (MGST) Act. The question before the court was whether a cash credit account qualifies as “property” that can be attached under section 83. The court held that a cash credit account, being a liability owed by the account holder to the bank, does not constitute property belonging to the taxable person as defined under Section 83 of the MGST Act. The phrase “including bank account” in the section was interpreted to exclude cash credit accounts, as they are not assets of the account holder. Relied on Manish Scrap Traders v. Principal Commissioner, (2022) 141 taxmann.com 153 (Guj) (HC) ; J.L. Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, (2023) 152 taxmann.com 278 (Cal) (HC) ; Sargam Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors, Writ Petition No. 4313 of 2008. [WP.No. 1928 of 2025 dt. 10-06-2024]
]]></content:encoded>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">55126</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>PCIT v. Hans Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (Bom)( HC) www.itatonline .org</title>
<link>https://itatonline.org/digest/pcit-v-hans-chemicals-pvt-ltd-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org/</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ksalegal]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2025 05:14:48 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[Income-Tax Act]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://itatonline.org/digest/pcit-v-hans-chemicals-pvt-ltd-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org/</guid>
<description><![CDATA[S. 268A : Appeal – Instructions -Circulars - Monetary limits -2 crores- Applicability of revised CBDT monetary limits (Circular No 3 of 2018 dt 11-7 2028 (2018) 405 ITR 29 ( St), Circular 9 of 2024 , dated 17 th September , 2024 (2024) 468 ITR 1 ( St))- Exceptions Apply Prospectively – Pending Appeals Covered by revised threshold – Appeal of Revenue is dismissed.[ S.260A ] ]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[In this case, the Revenue had filed an appeal against the assessee before the Bombay High Court. The assessee argued that the appeal should be dismissed as the tax effect involved was less than Rs.2 crores, in accordance with the monetary threshold laid down by CBDT circulars. The Revenue contended that the appeal was validly filed in 2018, when the applicable limit was Rs.50 lakhs, and that the appeal amount was Rs.74.69 lakhs. The Revenue also relied on a CBDT letter dated 20 August 2018 (2018) 407 ITR 7 ( St.) asserting that the appeal fell within an exception to the monetary limit restriction. The Bombay High Court held that though the Revenue had filed the appeal in 2018 when the applicable monetary limit for filing appeals was Rs.50 lakhs, the subsequent increase in the monetary threshold by the CBDT would still apply to pending appeals at the time of disposal. The Court referred PCIT v. Premier Industrial Corporation Ltd (2025) 172 taxmann.com 289 ( Bom)( HC) to its earlier judgments, including CIT v. V.M. Salgaonkar and Brothers (P) Ltd (2024) 169 Taxman 597 ( Bom)( HC) )and Pr. CIT v. IPL Loan Trust,(. 2025] 171 taxmann.com 725 (Bom)( HC), PCIT v. Axis AD Print Media (India) Ltd [2025] 172 taxmann.com 114 (Bom)( HC) where it had held that while revised monetary limits apply retrospectively to pending cases, any exceptions to those limits introduced by later CBDT circulars—such as the letter dated 20 August, 2018 (2018) 407 ITR 7 ( St.) relied upon by the Revenue would apply only prospectively, i.e., from the date of their introduction. Since the present appeal was filed before 20 August, 2018 and was not covered by any exception at the time of filing, the Court found no justification to keep it pending merely because an exception was introduced later. Accordingly, the Court upheld the assessee’s objection and disposed of the appeal on the ground of low tax effect under the revised monetary limits, without expressing any opinion on the substantive legal issues involved, which were kept open for future adjudication. (ITA No. 1718 of 2018 dt. 11.06.2025 )
]]></content:encoded>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">55122</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>Gokulakrishna v. DCIT ( Chennai )( Trib ) www.itatonline .org .</title>
<link>https://itatonline.org/digest/gokulakrishna-v-dcit-chennai-trib-www-itatonline-org/</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ksalegal]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2025 01:40:32 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[Income-Tax Act]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://itatonline.org/digest/gokulakrishna-v-dcit-chennai-trib-www-itatonline-org/</guid>
<description><![CDATA[S. 45(4) : Capital gains - Distribution of capital asset - Dissolution of firm - Introduction of new partner - Amount received by existing partner for sacrificing his profit-sharing ratio – Realignment of share ratio – No transfer of asset – No capital gain taxable on relinquishment of share ratio-Post amendment , 2021 , Finance Act , 2021 . [S. 2(14), 2(47),9B , 45]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The assessee is a partner in CRCL LLP, who received ₹2,38,63,452 when Elior India Catering LLP was admitted as a new partner with a 51% stake in CRCL LLP. The amount was credited to the existing partner for their reduction in profit-sharing ratios, with the assessee’s share decreasing from 12% to 5.88%. The AO treated this amount as short-term capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, arguing it constituted consideration for relinquishing profit-share rights and goodwill, which was also upheld by the CIT(A). However, the ITAT overturned this and held that the reduction in profit-sharing ratio during the firm’s reconstitution without asset transfer, retirement, or dissolution did not qualify as a “transfer” under section 2(47). On realignment of profit-sharing ratio upon introduction of new partners, there is no transfer of assets as the assets remain with the partnership firm, and thus, such an arrangement is not covered under Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act, which applies to dissolution or reconstitution scenarios involving asset distribution. It further noted that post-2021 amendments to Section 45(4) and Section 9B (which could tax such transactions) were prospective and inapplicable to the AY 2017–18, and therefore deleted the addition. Relied on CIT v. P.N. Panjawani 356 ITR 676 (Karn)(HC). [ ITA No. 1088/Chny/2025 dt. 17.06.2025] [AY .2017-18]
]]></content:encoded>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">55118</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>Indian Education Society. v. CIT (E) (2025) 210 ITD 92 (Mum) (Trib.)</title>
<link>https://itatonline.org/digest/indian-education-society-v-cit-e-2025-210-itd-92-mum-trib/</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ksalegal]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2025 10:55:49 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[Income-Tax Act]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://itatonline.org/digest/indian-education-society-v-cit-e-2025-210-itd-92-mum-trib/</guid>
<description><![CDATA[S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Accumulation of income-Corpus donation-Issue dealt in revision proceedings was unrelated in character from issue of corpus donation received by assessee which was dealt in re-assessment proceedings-Revision order was beyond period of two years-order is barred by limitation-Revision is quashed and set aside.[S. 11, 12A 143(1), 147, 148]
]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Re-assessment proceedings were initiated against assessee on ground that assessee had received capitation fees or development fund in cash or kind which had not been disclosed in return, resulting in escapement of income. Re-assessment order was passed treating corpus donation received by assessee as general donation to trust and thereby re-computing exemption available under sections 11 and 12. Commissioner passed revision order on 21-3-2024 against said re-assessment order dated 25-3-2022 on ground that Assessing Officer had not verified accumulation and application for year under consideration for purpose of object of trust for which amount was set apart. On appeal the Tribunal held that issue dealt by Commissioner in revision proceedings was altogether unrelated and different in character from issue dealt by Assessing Officer in re-assessment proceedings. The issue raised by Commissioner to invoke revisionary proceedings had to necessarily relate to intimation passed under section 143(1). On facts the revision order passed by Commissioner is beyond period of two years hence the order is barred by limitation hence quashed. (AY. 2016-17)
]]></content:encoded>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">55112</post-id> </item>
</channel>
</rss>

If you would like to create a banner that links to this page (i.e. this validation result), do the following:

Download the "valid RSS" banner.
Upload the image to your own server. (This step is important. Please do not link directly to the image on this server.)
Add this HTML to your page (change the image src attribute if necessary):

<a href="http://www.feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=https%3A//itatonline.org/digest/feed/"><img src="valid-rss-rogers.png" alt="[Valid RSS]" title="Validate my RSS feed" /></a>

If you would like to create a text link instead, here is the URL you can use:

http://www.feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=https%3A//itatonline.org/digest/feed/

Home · About · News · Docs · Terms