AY 2013-14

(→ for subcategory see right ) (for subcategory scroll Below)

Section 11 आई टी ए टी विशाखापट्टनम ने 21 सितंबर 2020 को फैसला देते हुए कहा कि जब करदाता ने सारी डिटेल और एविडेंस आयकर अधिकारी को दे दिए और आयकर अधिकारी ने कोई चेक नहीं किया। उसी डिटेल और एविडेंस की अगर कमिश्नर अपील जांच करता है तो रूल 46A कि कोई अवेहलना नहीं होती। करदाता की अपील स्वीकार की गई और माना गया की करदाता धारा 11 में छूट पाने का अधिकारी है KANDULA LAKSHUMMA MEMOIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ANR. Vs. DCIT. ITAT VISHAKAPATNAM AY 2013-14. In Favour of Assessee.
Section 144 r.w. Section 145(3): ITAT JAIPUR on Jun 19, 2020 held that Even if the books f ‎accounts rejected by invoking provisions of Section 145(3) due doubt on genuineness of the ‎purchases, the A.O. is bound to frame the assessment on best assessment as per provisions of ‎Section 144 r.w. Section 145(3). Therefore, after rejection of books of account, the A.O. is ‎required to estimate the income of the assessee on some reasonable and proper basis. Once the ‎past year results have attained finality and not in dispute, the same can form the basis for ‎estimating the GP rate for the current year. KEDIA EXPORTS PVT. LTD. & ANR. vs. ‎ACIT. AY 2009-10, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Decision in favour of Assessee
Section 14A envisages that there has to be an actual receipt of exempt income during the relevant previous year for purpose of making any disallowance u/s 14A, Section 2(22)(e) do not apply when transactions are trading business transactions and The provisions of section 50C cannot be incorporated in the computation of block of the assets. DCIT vs. FUTURZ NEXT SERVICES (PRIVATE) LIMITED. AY 2013-14
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.
Section 32, 37, 36(1)(iii), 37(1), 131, 133A, 56, 147‎ AY 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15‎ After going through the various terms of the deed if it is loan/finance arrangement ‎between the parties then the assessee is entitled only to claim interest as expenditure u/s ‎‎36 (1) (iii) and depreciation and is not entitled to claim the principal component of ‎alleged lease rent paid as ‘revenue expenditure’ u/s 37(1). FASTWAY TRANSMISSION ‎‎(P) LTD. vs. ACIT ITAT CHANDIGARH May 6, 2020‎
During lock down period- the AO has acted with undue haste in passing the orders under Section 201(1)(1A) of the Act.- The writ was allowed for quashing the order passed under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961- the demand notice. Immediately after the lockdown is withdrawn by the Government, a period of two weeks reckoned therefrom is granted to the petitioner to reply to the Notices to the show cause issued by the respondent.
ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM on 26 February, 2020- Search and Seizure operations- Once the ‎assessee has explained the way in which he derived income and also the purpose for which it ‎is utilized, it is not necessary for the assessee being an educational society to substantiate ‎further with the source of the income received in view of section 115BBC(2)&(3) of the Act. ‎Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the assessee has ‎fulfilled all the conditions laid down in Section 271AAB(1)(a), therefore penalty at 10% is ‎leviable (instead of 30%) in this case.‎ As per section 115BBC, any trust or institution received anonymous donations, is not ‎necessary to mention identity/address and other particulars in the books.‎
Madras High Court decision on 5 March, 2020 on stay of demand-consequences of not ‎depositing of 20% of total demand within 30 days alongwith stay application- CBDT’s ‎instruction on stay of demand
ITAT Ahmedabad on 11th March, 2020-Diary seized, surrender made and survey statement recorded under section 133A. But having no corroborative evidences. Exorbitant profit is not possible in the line of business of the assessee. No other business is found. No unexplained investment is found. It was held that Since it is business receipt only GP based on past history can be added as income.
ITAT INDORE held on Mar 19, 2020 fee u/s 234E cannot be levied in the statement processed u/s 200A up to 31.05.2015.