-
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 127, 132(4) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY on Jul 15, 2019 held that when the assessment of an Assessee is being transferred from one Commissionerate to another, the requirement of hearing and following the principle of natural justice is inbuilt in the statutory provisions contained in Section 127 of the Act. Therefore the giving of notice to the assessee containing the reasons and the statements or even the gist of the statements to the extent relevant for the proposed action is a basic postulate. The views of the noticee are to be considered by the authority before taking any decision to confirm or drop the notice. A show cause notice to be effective must be adequate so as to enable a party to effectively object/respond to the same. The authority concerned is obliged to consider the objections, if any, and thereafter, reach a finding one way or the other. The impugned order is quashed. NARESH MANAKCHAND JAIN vs PCIT. IN favour of the assessee.
-
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 145 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA on May 5, 2020 held that There cannot be any dispute to the fact that every assessee being entitled to arrange its affairs and follow the method of accounting, which the Department has earlier accepted. Further if assessee is in the business of taking land, putting up commercial building thereon, letting out such building with all furniture as his profession or his business then notwithstanding the fact that he has constructed building and he has also provided other facilities and even if there are two separate rental deeds, it does not fall within the income from house property. CIT vs. PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS PVT. LTD. AY 2005-06
-
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 54 BANGALORE ITAT Decision on 8.5.2020: The deduction u/s 54 of the Act should not be denied merely because the name of assessee’s husband is mentioned in the purchase document, when the entire purchase consideration has flown from the assessee. Smt. Subbalakshmi Kurada Vs ACIT AY 2016-17
-
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 68- AY 2011-12- ITAT SURAT- May 4, 2020 When the assessee furnishes names and addresses of the alleged creditors and the GIR Numbers, the burden shifts to the Department to establish the revenue’s case and in order to sustain the addition the revenue has to pursue the enquiry and to establish the lack of creditworthiness and mere non-compliance of summons issued by the Assessing Officer under section 131 by the alleged creditors will not be sufficient to draw an adverse inference against the assessee. DCIT vs. KEJRIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.
-
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