-
Search and Seizure- No seizure of jewellery when it is stock of the assessee as the protection is provided in proviso appearing after sub clause – (iii) to sub Section (1) of Section 132 for stock. Further Satisfaction note clearly disclosed that formulation of “reason to believe” was post search and seizure. Action of search and seizure is bad in law. Saddle the Deptt. with costs at Rs.50,000/-. KHEM CHAND MUKIM Vs.Principal Director of Income Tax. Jan 9, 2020 IT-CASES-214-2020
-
Section 132 When no incriminating material is shown by the Ld. AO therefore disallowance made only on ad-hoc basis is not permissible under the Income Tax Act. SHARUK PASSI & ANR. vs.DCIT ITAT Delhi order on Mar 19, 2020. IT-CASES-213-2020
-
Section 132,148 Cancelled receipt of Rs. 11 lacs showing total transaction of Rs. 61 lacs signed by Sanjeev on behalf of Romy was found and Romy surrendered Rs. 11 Lacs only. AO has not confronted contents of said receipts from S. Addition made of Rs. 50 Lacs is deleted in the absence of any other corroborative material before AO. ROMI LAL NANDA vs.ITO. ITAT Delhi order date 28.9.2020. IT-CASES-212-2020
-
Section 132, 153A Assessment was completed under section 143(1). Completed assessments can be interfered with by A.O. while making assessment under section 153A only on basis of some incriminating material unearthed during course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in course of original assessment. ACIT v. SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA 30.9.2020 Delhi ITAT IT-CASES-211-2020
-
Section 132, 153A What AO can do with item found in search is already disclosed in ITR and Balance Sheet submitted?IT-CASES-210-2020
-
दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट ने 1 अगस्त 2017 को फैसला देते हुए कहा कि आयकर छापे के दौरान धारा 132 4 में लिए गए स्टेटमेंट अपने आप में incriminating material नहीं है केवल इस आधार पर ना तो assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153 A हो सकता है और ना ही कोई एडिशन किया जा सकता है.PCIT vs.BEST INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. & ORS. IT-CASES-208-2020
-
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
-
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
-
No addition as undisclosed income can be made on the basis of documents which are dumb and incapable of any interpretation in proceedings u/s 132, 158BC read with Section 158BD.-IT-CASES-204-2020
-
Retraction of statement given in search u/s132(4). Mere admission of additional income would not automatically entitle the assessing officer to assess the same, if the assessee disputes the same subsequently with corroborative evidences. IT-CASES-202-2020