Monthly Archive: April 2020

Supreme court on 24th April, 2020 held that clause (f) in Section 43B of the 1961 Act is ‎constitutionally valid and therefore any sum payable by the assessee as an employer in lieu of ‎any leave at the credit of his employee is allowable only on actual payment. Division Bench ‎of High Court at Calcutta order is reversed.‎

60 total views

60 total views “…..the insertion of clause (f) has not extinguished the autonomy of the assessee to follow the mercantile system. It merely defers the benefit of deduction to be availed by the assessee for the purpose of computing…
Read more

43B, 43B(f), In favour of Revenue, Supreme Court

ITAT DELHI on Mar 19, 2020 cancelled the penalty levied as the notice issued by the AO was held as bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. ADMAN ADVERTISING vs ACIT

55 total views

55 total views ITAT DELHI on Mar 19, 2020 cancelled the penalty levied as the notice issued by the AO was held as bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been…
Read more

271(1)(c), AY 2010-11, Delhi, Delhi Tribunal, In Favour of Assessee, Penalty, penalty 271(1)(c)

During lock down period- the AO has acted with undue haste in passing the orders under Section 201(1)(1A) of the Act.- The writ was allowed for quashing the order passed under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961- the demand notice. Immediately after the lockdown is withdrawn by the Government, a period of two weeks reckoned therefrom is granted to the petitioner to reply to the Notices to the show cause issued by the respondent.

48 total views

48 total views During lock down period- the AO has acted with undue haste in passing the orders under Section 201(1)(1A) of the Act.- The writ was allowed for quashing the order passed under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act,…
Read more

201(1)(1A), AY 2012-13, AY 2013-14, Delhi, Delhi High Court, Demand, In Favour of Assessee

आयकर छापे व सर्वे-कैसे बचे या पड़ जाए तो कैसे सामना करें

231 total views

231 total views आयकर छापे व सर्वे- Please click the link to see the video ‎1.‎ आयकर छापे व सर्वे का मुख्य उद्देश्य आयकर की चोरी को पकड़ना या ‎चोरी को रोकना है ‎ a.‎ आयकर का छापा पड़ने का मुख्य…
Read more

ITAT- Amritsar on 18 February, 2020-hold that In the light of ratio laid down by the Hon`ble ‎Supreme Court citation 418 ITR 662 (S.C.) it is the duty of the assessee to keep upto date the ‎address in data base of the IT Department by submitting timely prescribed application.‎

41 total views

41 total views ITAT- Amritsar on 18 February, 2020-hold that In the light of ratio laid down by the Hon`ble Supreme Court citation 418 ITR 662 (S.C.) it is the duty of the assessee to keep upto date the address in…
Read more

143(2), 147, 148, 282, 49A, AY 2009-10, ITAT Amritsar ‎

Supreme Court on 24.4.2020 held that no addition u/s 68 can be allowed when the CIT ‎Appeal deleted the penalty on the same credit entry on the ground that the assessee establish ‎the credentials. High Court also held that when the books of accounts rejected for GP ‎addition purpose, but then, if those books of accounts did disclose certain other assets, ‎which are wrongly shown to be liabilities, and for acquisition of which the assessee did ‎not show the source, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer was not entitled to use ‎the books of accounts for this purpose.‎ Basir Ahmed Sisodiya Vs. ITO

65 total views

65 total views SC-Section 68-271(1)(c)-GP Rate-addition Supreme Court on 24.4.2020 held that no addition u/s 68 can be allowed when the CIT Appeal deleted the penalty on the same credit entry on the ground that the assessee establish the credentials….
Read more

144, 145(3), 271(1)(c), 44AB, 68, AY 1998-99, penalty 271(1)(c), Supreme Court, unexplained cash credit

ITAT Delhi on 31st jan; 2019 held that CIT(A) could not enhance income of assessee on ‎altogether ‘new Source’.‎ before submitting your written submission kindly read carefully the notes and read case laws mentioned.

59 total views

59 total views ITAT Delhi on 31st jan; 2019 held that CIT(A) could not enhance income of assessee on altogether ‘new Source’. HARI MOHAN SHARMA & ANR. vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH ‘E’…
Read more

147, 148, 151, 151(1)(a), 263-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue, 54F, AY 2014-15, In Favour of Assessee, Matter remanded

ITAT KOLKATA on Mar 13, 2020 quashed the reopening of assessment and allow this appeal of the assessee on the ground that the re-opening is bad in law as the Assessing Officer has not independently applied his mind to the material and recorded reasons which are vague and merely based on borrowed satisfaction.

39 total views

39 total views ITAT KOLKATA on Mar 13, 2020 quashed the reopening of assessment and allow this appeal of the assessee on the ground that the re-opening is bad in law as the Assessing Officer has not independently applied his mind…
Read more

147, AY 2011-12, bogus, borrowed satisfaction, In Favour of Assessee, Kolkata tribunal, Reason recorded, Satisfaction

ITAT DELHI on 20th Feb; 2020 held that when Documents / information found during the course of search under section 132(1) of the Act- ‎permissible proceedings- only under section 153C of the Act and hence assumption of ‎jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act is bad in law and notice issued under section 143(2) ‎of the Act is not valid notice and therefore the order passed is annulled. ‎Ananya Portfolio (P) Ltd. v. ITO- IT-CASES-203-2020

51 total views

51 total views ITAT DELHI on 20 February, 2020 held that when documents / information found during the course of search under section 132(1) of the Act- permissible proceedings- only under section 153C of the Act and hence assumption of jurisdiction…
Read more

132, 143(2), 143(3), 148, 153C, Authority, AY 2009-10, AY 2010-11, Delhi, Delhi Tribunal, H.S. SIDHU, In Favour of Assessee, J.M.‎

Section 147, 132 Gujarat High Court on 25 February, 2020 held that when Search and seizure of incriminating ‎material is at third party and have not in the name of or in hand writings or signature of the ‎assessee, also no such transaction is with third party then in the absence of any other ‎independent material to corroborate the statement of third party no addition can be made.‎ it-cases-205-2020

57 total views

57 total views Gujarat High Court on 25 February, 2020 held that when Search and seizure of incriminating material is at third party and have not in the name of or in hand writings or signature of the assessee, also no…
Read more

132, 143(3), 147, 68, AY 2006-07, Gujrat High Court, In Favour of Assessee, incriminating material