-
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
-
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.
-
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 69A, 69B, 148, 254 CHANDULAL AMRUTLAL SHAH (HUF) & ORS. vs. ITO May 4, 2020 ITAT SURAT AY 2000-01 & 2004-05. Supreme Court in the case of MCorp Global (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 309 ITR 434 (SC) held that It is well-settled that the Tribunal is not authorized to take back the benefit granted to the assessee by the Assessing Officer. It has no power to enhance the assessment. In view of the statutory provisions. AO cannot enhanced the income originally assessed under section 143 (3) in set-aside proceeding in consequence of direction of the tribunal.
-
Section 147, 148 ANAND DEVELOPERS vs. ACIT HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY GOA BENCH 1 Feb, 2020 Notice u/s 147 and order u/s 148 is quashed and set aside when a notice seeking to reopen assessment is beyond normal period of 4 years, in a case where the assessment has been made under Section 143(3) and the revenue failed to establish the precondition even prima facie that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for that assessment year.
-
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
-
ITAT HYDERABAD on 29th April 2020 held that the sale of the property by the Vendee cum AGPA-holder cannot be considered as sale of property by the assessee when the Vendee has paid the entire sale consideration and has taken possession of the property as the Vendee becomes the owner of the property u/s.53A of the TP Act and u/s.2(47) it is a transfer of the property. Further it is worth noting that except being described as the Vendor, the assessee is neither a signatory to the subsequent Sale Deed nor is he the recipient of any of the sale consideration. In SAMA OM REDDY vs. ITO
-
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.
-
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.
-
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