-
Question: Consequences of Penalty-Concealment-Non-striking off of the irrelevant part while issuing notice u/s 271(1)(c). ITAT – Delhi in the case of Malook Nagar, New Delhi vs Acit Central Circle-15, New Delhi on 13 May, 2022
-
An assessee has not filed the appeal. Now while filing cross objection on appeal filed by the department, the assessee submit an application in Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules raising a new ground on which neither any decision rendered by the CIT(A) nor such ground was raised in appeal to CIT(A). The moot question is can the assessee file an application? ITAT Pune decided on 24 June, 2021 in the case DCIT vs Shikshana Prasaraka Mandali. Best Course of action is to file appeal and if there is delay in appeal then file with an application of condonation of delay. Kindly click the link to get full order. FCA bpmundra 9314501680 [email protected]
-
Question: Q.The search in the premises of the assessees is on the basis of warrant issued in the name of B. The AO without applying his mind consciously and mandatorily had not stated in the satisfaction note that the seized documents belong to “other person” i.e; the assessee. The question is that without recording such a satisfaction can AO initiate proceedings against the “other persons i.e; the assessee” u/s 153C of the Act. ITAT Banglore Bench passed the order on Jul 30, 2021 in the case of ARSHAD ISPAT & ANR. vs. DCIT. Section 139, 147, 148, 149, 151, 153C
-
Since books of account were not rejected, therefore, provisions of section 69B were wrongly invoked by AO. 2018 TaxPub(DT) 4842 (Raj-HC) CIT v. Gaurav Kumar Sharma on dated 12 October, 2017
-
क्या होगा जब पुन: कर निर्धारण के लिए धारा 148 का नोटिस गलत जगह भेजकर आईटीओ रिअसेसमेंट कर दे। 6 नवंबर 2020 को आईटीआई बेंगलुरु ने DIVYA S RAO vs. आईटीओ
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not strike out the inappropriate words then that imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. Ratan Kumar Paul Vs DCIT