-
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 43(1), 143(3), 263 ITAT KOLKATA on May 29, 2020 hold that the industrial promotion assistance it received was on capital account.
-
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
-
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.
-
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)
-
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
-
Unless the bad debt is written off by debiting to the P&L account and the debtors’ account should be credited, the condition as contemplated u/s. 36(1)(vii) is not satisfied. judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. (supra) relied on by the assessee’s Counsel applies mainly to Banking companies Regarding allowability of Provision for bad debts. No infirmity was found in exercising power u/s 263 by CIT
-
ITAT KOLKATA on Mar 18, 2020 held that the assessment made u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act is invalid in the absence of any incriminating material found during course of search hence the addition made by AO in assessment completed was beyond scope.