-
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.
-
ITAT DELHI on 20th Feb; 2020 held that when Documents / information found during the course of search under section 132(1) of the Act- permissible proceedings- only under section 153C of the Act and hence assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act is bad in law and notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act is not valid notice and therefore the order passed is annulled. Ananya Portfolio (P) Ltd. v. ITO
-
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.
-
दिल्ली ट्रिब्यूनल ने 28 मार्च 2020 को फैसला दिया है कि धारा 205 के अनुसार अगर करदाता टीडीएस कट जाने का प्रूफ दे देता है तो उस टीडीएस की रिकवरी कर निर्धारण अधिकारी करदाता से इस आधार पर नहीं कर सकता टीडीएस काटने वाले ने के लिए जमा नहीं कराया। धारा 201 के अनुसार आयकर विभाग के पास समुचित अधिकार है जिसने टीडीएस काटा है उस से रिकवरी कर ली जाए