-
क्या होगा जब पुन: कर निर्धारण के लिए धारा 148 का नोटिस गलत जगह भेजकर आईटीओ रिअसेसमेंट कर दे। 6 नवंबर 2020 को आईटीआई बेंगलुरु ने DIVYA S RAO vs. आईटीओ
-
ITAT DELHI Nov 6, 2020 held that Section 68 is applicable only when the explanation offered by him is not in the opinion of the Assessing Officer satisfactory in respect of the sum so credited / loan taken. The explanation offered by the assessee that the bank account and the capacity of the creditor who have given the loan amount was proved through ITR details of the said parties along with bank statements and confirmations which clearly shows the proper balance in their respective bank accounts and their capacity to loan the amount to any other party as well. Sum credited in the bank account of directors immediately before the issue of cheque to the appellant is not a ground to hold that sum received is unaccounted income. BMR PLYMERS (P) LTD. vs. ITO
-
Section 245D(4) HIGH COURT OF PATNA order dated 6.10.2020. If the Settlement Commissioner had all records before him, Revenue had duly made its representation, and the Settlement Commission had thereinafter accepted the settlement only way of reading the impugned sentence is that the matter was straightforward on the face of the record. Since the revenue had duly made its representation, and the Settlement Commission had thereinafter accepted the settlement, therefore, it cannot be reopened. It is also not disputed that the Settlement Commission necessarily was required to pass orders else the proceedings would have abated. Revenue has not pointed any finger of misconduct against any one of the members of the Settlement Commission. CIT & ANR. vs. INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION (IT&WT) & ANR.
-
Section 147 on 27 April, 2020 Unless the assessing officer assesses the income with reference to which he had formed a reason to believe within the meaning of section 147, it would not be open to him to assess or reassess any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice. ITAT, DELHI BENCH in the case of Sheela Foam Ltd. v. DCIT. IT-CASES-217-2020
-
Business or rental income : The Court took into consideration the Intention of the Assessee, the kind of services rendered including range of common facilities and amenities to the occupiers, also have revenue sharing agreement clearly point out that the Income is from Business. City Centre Mall Nashik Pvt. Ltd Bombay High Court decided on 13th January, 2020 and SLP dismissed by the Supreme Court
-
Calendar -Due Due dates as per income tax Act
-
Search and Seizure- No seizure of jewellery when it is stock of the assessee as the protection is provided in proviso appearing after sub clause – (iii) to sub Section (1) of Section 132 for stock. Further Satisfaction note clearly disclosed that formulation of “reason to believe” was post search and seizure. Action of search and seizure is bad in law. Saddle the Deptt. with costs at Rs.50,000/-. KHEM CHAND MUKIM Vs.Principal Director of Income Tax. Jan 9, 2020 IT-CASES-214-2020
-
Section 132 When no incriminating material is shown by the Ld. AO therefore disallowance made only on ad-hoc basis is not permissible under the Income Tax Act. SHARUK PASSI & ANR. vs.DCIT ITAT Delhi order on Mar 19, 2020. IT-CASES-213-2020
-
Section 132,148 Cancelled receipt of Rs. 11 lacs showing total transaction of Rs. 61 lacs signed by Sanjeev on behalf of Romy was found and Romy surrendered Rs. 11 Lacs only. AO has not confronted contents of said receipts from S. Addition made of Rs. 50 Lacs is deleted in the absence of any other corroborative material before AO. ROMI LAL NANDA vs.ITO. ITAT Delhi order date 28.9.2020. IT-CASES-212-2020
-
Section 132, 153A Assessment was completed under section 143(1). Completed assessments can be interfered with by A.O. while making assessment under section 153A only on basis of some incriminating material unearthed during course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in course of original assessment. ACIT v. SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA 30.9.2020 Delhi ITAT IT-CASES-211-2020