-
Section 148-ITAT, PUNE BENCH-11 September, 2019 held that Reassessment—Validity—only on the basis of the some reasons to believe about the escapement of income. Existence of reasons for escapement of income are sine qua non to embark upon the assessment or reassessment under section 147 of the Act. Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani v. ACIT. AY 2009-10
-
Kindly note Supreme Court in Vodafone Idea on 29th April 2020 held that there is assessment year wise regime in processing of refund u/s 143(1)
-
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA on Mar 19, 2020 held that Section 143(1-A) can only be invoked when the revenue discharged the burden of proving that the assessee has attempted to evade tax which may be discharged by the Revenue by establishing facts and circumstances from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the assessee has, in fact, attempted to evade tax lawfully payable by it. Hence the Ld. AO cannot mechanically apply the provisions of Section 143(1-A) after issuing intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
-
ITAT Mumbai on 16th March 2020 held that In case of bogus bill found where actual purchases were made by cash, method of peak credit as adopted by AO would not be a suitable method rather an adhoc estimated addition would meet cause of justice
-
ITAT Mumbai on 16th March 2020 held that to make addition in Section 69C it is postulated that source of expenditure incurred not found satisfactory by Ld. AO. When purchases were reversed by the assessee in subsequent years and the transactions of purchases as well as sales were stated to be mere paper entries. The such stock purchased was reflected in closing stock. Thus it is circular transactions and are mere paper entries and no addition can be made u/s 69C.
-
ITAT Mumbai on 16th March 2020 held that the Retraction of a statement of a particular person by another person statement is bad and disregarded for all purposes.
-
11 मार्च 2020 अहमदाबाद ट्रिब्यूनल ने फेसला दिया कि अगर कर निर्धारण अधिकारी धारा 148 का नोटिस मृत व्यक्ति के नाम से दिया है और उसके उत्तराधिकारी नोटिस का जवाब देते हैं और उस समय कोई ऑब्जेक्शन नहीं उठाते हैं और कर निर्धारण अधिकारी उत्तराधिकारी के नाम से एसेसमेंट ऑर्डर करते हैं तो वह नोटिस 148 वैलिड रहेगा लेकिन चूंकि एसेसमेंट ऑर्डर केवल एक उत्तराधिकारी के खिलाफ है इस कारण सेट एसाइड किया गया की यह आर्डर सभी उत्तराधिकारी के खिलाफ किया जावे।
-
It is well settled that in case the books of accounts are rejected the income of the business in which the Assessee was engaged can be determined by estimating the profit rate considering past history.
-
If Assessee proved identity, creditworthiness as well as genuineness of transactions then the Assessee had discharged its primary onus on providing complete details in respect of loan transactions and if AO failed to carry out any fruitful investigation then no addition could be made towards unexplained unsecured loans. 29 Judgement discussed
-
No addition in respect of share application money when names and addresses of share holders were given to AO