Delhi

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

Section 132, 153A What AO can do with item found in search is already disclosed in ITR and Balance Sheet submitted?
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
Friends this case is belonging to Section 132, 143(1), 153A(1) and 153C. ITAT DELHI on Jun 30, 2020 on the issue of determining the six assessment years prior to the date of search. Facts in brief are that the document of the assessee was found during search operation on dated 9.10.2014 at the premises of Shri Mulchand Malu and Shri Vikas Malu and therefore the assessee was the “other person” to be assessed u/s 153C. Further there was undisputed facts that the documents etc., were handed-over to the A.O. of the assessee was in the month of September, 2016. It was held that therefore the six assessment years prior to the date of search in the case of the assessee is A.Ys. 2011-2012 to 2016-2017. Therefore, there is no jurisdiction with the A.O. to pass assessment order for the assessment year 2009-10 and the same was held to be without jurisdiction, void abinitio and was quashed. ACIT vs. KUBER PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. AY 2009-2010. In favour of the assessee
Section 153C: Delhi High Court on 09.08.2019 held that since the search took place and Notice under Section 153C prior to 1st June, 2015 and, therefore, Section 153C of the Act as it stood at the relevant time applied. Therefore, the onus was on the Revenue to show that the incriminating material/documents recovered at the time of search belongs’ to the Assessee. In other words, it is not enough for the Revenue to show that the documents either pertain’ to the Assessee or contains information that relates to’ the Assessee. Further the licence issued to the Assessee by the DTCP and the letter issued by the DTCP permitting it to transfer such licence are not incriminating material and therefore jurisdiction can not be assumed by the AO under Section 153C of the Act. PCIT vs M/S. Dreamcity Buildwell Pvt.
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
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 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
Rule 46A. The assessee submitted that additional evidence before the CIT(A), but the ‎CIT(A) has not admitted the same. The CIT(A) should have looked into the additional ‎evidences while arriving at the proper conclusion which the CIT(A) failed to do so. In the ‎present case, the assessment order was passed under Section 144 of the Act which shows that ‎the Assessing Officer has not seen any evidences while making additions. Thus, we are ‎admitting the additional evidence filed before the CIT(A). ‎ITAT DELHI on May 15, 2020 AY 2010-11‎. Rakesh Aggarwal vs. ITO
ITAT DELHI on Mar 19, 2020 cancelled the penalty levied as the notice issued by the AO was held as bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. ADMAN ADVERTISING vs ACIT
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.