Yearly Archive: 2020

Rule 27 of ITAT Rules :HIGH COURT OF DELHI on May 18, 2020 hold that Not having ‎filed a cross objection, even when the appeal was preferred by the Revenue, it does not ‎mean that an inference can be drawn that the assessee had accepted the findings in part ‎of the final order, that was decided against him. Therefore, when the Revenue filed an ‎appeal before the ITAT, the assessee was entitled under law to defend the same and ‎support the order in appeal on any of the grounds decided against it. SANJAY ‎SAWHNEY vs. PCIT AY 2008-09‎

Rule 27 of ITAT Rules :HIGH COURT OF DELHI on May 18, 2020 hold that Not having filed a cross objection, even when the appeal was preferred by the Revenue, it does not mean that an inference can be drawn…
Read more

27, AY 2008-09, Decisions, Delhi, Delhi High Court, In Favour of Assessee, ITAT Rules

Section 145 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA on May 5, 2020 held that There cannot be ‎any dispute to the fact that every assessee being entitled to arrange its affairs and follow the ‎method of accounting, which the Department has earlier accepted. Further if assessee is in the ‎business of taking land, putting up commercial building thereon, letting out such building ‎with all furniture as his profession or his business then notwithstanding the fact that he has ‎constructed building and he has also provided other facilities and even if there are two ‎separate rental deeds, it does not fall within the income from house property. CIT vs. ‎PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS PVT. LTD. AY 2005-06‎

Section 145 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA on May 5, 2020 held that There cannot be any dispute to the fact that every assessee being entitled to arrange its affairs and follow the method of accounting, which the Department has earlier…
Read more

145, 145(3), In Favour of Assessee, KARNATAKA High Court, Method of accounting

Section 263 ITAT DELHI on May 14, 2020 Issues subject to revision u/s 263 were ‎pertaining to original assessment u/s 143(3) and not the reopened assessment u/s ‎‎147; the limitation should also start from the original assessment. In this case as ‎original assessment order u/s 143(3) of the act was passed on 16.01.2014, the ‎revision thereof could have been taken up to 31.3.2016. Impugned order u/s 263 ‎of the act was passed on 26/2/2019, therefore it is clearly beyond the limitation ‎prescribed u/s 263 (2) of the act. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. vs. PCIT

Section 263 ITAT DELHI on May 14, 2020 Issues subject to revision u/s 263 were pertaining to original assessment u/s 143(3) and not the reopened assessment u/s 147; the limitation should also start from the original assessment. In this case…
Read more

143(3), 147, 148, 263-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue, AY 2009-10, Decisions, Delhi, Delhi Tribunal, In Favour of Assessee, Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Section 263

Section 153C- Supreme Court of India on on 5 March, 2020 Before issuing notice ‎under Section 153C of the Act, the Assessing Officer of the searched person must be ‎‎“satisfied” that, inter alia, any document seized or requisitioned “belongs to” a person ‎other than the searched person. If the satisfaction note recorded under Section 153C of ‎the Act in respect of the assessee, i.e., a third party, hold invalid entire proceedings taken ‎there under is null and void. However, in the case where the Assessing Officer of the ‎searched person and the other person is the same, it is sufficient by the Assessing Officer ‎to note in the satisfaction note that the documents seized from the searched person ‎belonged to the other person i.e; the assessee. In the case of M/S. Super Malls Private ‎Limited. vs PCIT.‎ AY 2008-09

Kindly see para 6 “6. This Court had an occasion to consider the scheme of Section 153C of the Act and the conditions precedent to be fulfilled/complied with before issuing notice under Section 153C of the Act in the case of Calcutta Knitwears (supra)…
Read more

153C, AY 2008-09, In favour of Revenue, Satisfaction, Satisfaction Note, Supreme Court

Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment act, 2016 section 2(9)(A)(b) Exception ‎‎(iii), 2, 3, 3(2), 4, 4(1), 4(2), 4(3). Delhi District Court on 16 May, 2020 hold for Benami ‎transactions that the Amended Act is not applicatively retrospectively, however the ‎Amended Act is applicable w.e.f. 01.11.2016 and the suit has been filed on 11 November ‎‎2016, therefore, what will govern the parties is not the Old Act but the Amended Act. ‎Jagan Singh Gahlot vs Rajbala

Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment act, 2016 section 2(9)(A)(b) Exception (iii), 2, 3, 3(2), 4, 4(1), 4(2), 4(3). Delhi District Court on 16 May, 2020 hold for Benami transactions that the Amended Act is not applicatively retrospectively, however the Amended Act…
Read more

2, 2(9)(A)(b) Exception (iii), 3, 3(2), 4, 4(1), 4(2), 4(3), Benami Transactions (Prohibition)

Section 2(14): Income earned by the assessee constitute business income not Long Term ‎Capital Gains reason that the assessee has always shown it as closing stock of ‎agricultural land in the balance sheets and the object is of property business. Following ‎contention of the assessee was not accepted the land is always valued at cost, period of ‎holding for 13 years, accepting by deptt for deriving of agricultural income from the ‎land. KOHLI ESTATES PVT. LTD. vs. ITO ITAT DELHI on May 5, 2020 AY 2011-‎‎12.‎

Section 2(14): Income earned by the assessee constitute business income not Long Term Capital Gains reason that the assessee has always shown it as closing stock of agricultural land in the balance sheets and the object is of property business….
Read more

2(14), 28, AY 2011-12, Delhi Tribunal, In favour of Revenue

Rule 46A. The assessee submitted that additional evidence before the CIT(A), but the ‎CIT(A) has not admitted the same. The CIT(A) should have looked into the additional ‎evidences while arriving at the proper conclusion which the CIT(A) failed to do so. In the ‎present case, the assessment order was passed under Section 144 of the Act which shows that ‎the Assessing Officer has not seen any evidences while making additions. Thus, we are ‎admitting the additional evidence filed before the CIT(A). ‎ITAT DELHI on May 15, 2020 AY 2010-11‎. Rakesh Aggarwal vs. ITO

Rule 46A. The assessee submitted that additional evidence before the CIT(A), but the CIT(A) has not admitted the same. The CIT(A) should have looked into the additional evidences while arriving at the proper conclusion which the CIT(A) failed to do…
Read more

46A Rule, AY 2010-11, Decisions, Delhi, Delhi Tribunal

If the Notice u/s 143(2) issued by Income tax Officer was having no Jurisdiction at the ‎time of issue of the notice then this is not a valid notice as it suffers from an inherent ‎lacuna affecting his / its jurisdiction. It is not a curable defect u/s 292BB. The consequent ‎order passed u/s 143(3) dated 29.12.2017 was legally unsustainable and therefore is null ‎in the eyes of law and therefore quashed. ITO vs Mr.P N Krishnamurthy ITAT ‎Bangalore on 27 April, 2020‎.

Conclusion: If the Notice u/s 143(2) issued by Income tax Officer was having no Jurisdiction at the time of issue of the notice then this is not a valid notice as it suffers from an inherent lacuna affecting his…
Read more

143(2), 144, 147, 148, AY 2013-14, Bangalore Tribunal, In Favour of Assessee

Article on NOTICE U/S 143(2)- Circumstances when notice U/s 143(2) hold as non ‎service- resulting that assessment framed is invalid and accordingly quashed.‎

Article on NOTICE U/S 143(2)- Circumstances when notice U/s 143(2) hold as non service- resulting that assessment framed is invalid and accordingly quashed. This article tries to solve following questions :- When there is non service of notice U/S 143(2)…
Read more

143(3), 143(3), 147, 148

TDS Rate is changed from 14.5.2020. So click for getting new rate.

Sno Sections Nature of Payment TDS Rate w.e.f 14.05.2020 to 31.3.2021 %) TDS Rate w.e.f 1.04.2020 to 13.5.2020 % If No Pan or Invalid PAN (Rate %) 1 192 Salaries- As per calculation and Slab Rate 30% 2 193…
Read more

192A, 193, 194, 194-I, 194A, 194DA, 194EE, 194K, Articles, Cases Income tax