-
Section 23(1)(c). Can AO make addition on account of notional rent when the property on rent in past is lying vacant in the relevant year and the assessee mention only the reason though no evidence of efforts made was submitted except the evidence that the property was on rent in next financial year.ITAT BOMBAY passed the order on Oct 30, 2019AY 2014-15 EMPIRE CAPITAL PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT. Decision 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 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
-
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 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 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 DELHI on Mar 11, 2020 held in Penny stock- The assessee submitted sufficient documentary evidences before A.O. The A.O. has not brought any adverse material against the assessee so as to make the above additions. The interim order of the SEBI have been revoked against the assessee. The denial of right of cross-examination is a flaw which renders the assessment order a nullity. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC) and Andaman Timber Industries vs., CCE 314 ELT 641.
-
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
-
No Penalty 271(1)(c) ITAT Chandigarh held that since the income has already been declared in the valid revised return (though after service of Summons issued by ADIT (inv.)) filed within the limitation period prescribed for filing the same therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of the aforesaid income declared is not leviable and the same is accordingly ordered to be deleted. Penalty u/s 271AAC can be levied only when there is an addition or disallowance and which it is deemed that he has evaded the payment of tax for computing the penalty so leviable. Smt. Parkash Kaur, Ludhiana vs ACIT