-
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
-
Section 132, 153A What AO can do with item found in search is already disclosed in ITR and Balance Sheet submitted?IT-CASES-210-2020
-
क्या होगा जब किसी के यहां आयकर छापा पड़े और वहां पड़े किसी इनक्रिमिनेटिंग मैट्रियल पर आपका नाम हो? आईटीऐटी दिल्ली ने 28 अप्रैल 2020 को क्या फैसला दिया? IT-CASES-209-2020
-
Section 11 आई टी ए टी विशाखापट्टनम ने 21 सितंबर 2020 को फैसला देते हुए कहा कि जब करदाता ने सारी डिटेल और एविडेंस आयकर अधिकारी को दे दिए और आयकर अधिकारी ने कोई चेक नहीं किया। उसी डिटेल और एविडेंस की अगर कमिश्नर अपील जांच करता है तो रूल 46A कि कोई अवेहलना नहीं होती। करदाता की अपील स्वीकार की गई और माना गया की करदाता धारा 11 में छूट पाने का अधिकारी है KANDULA LAKSHUMMA MEMOIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ANR. Vs. DCIT. ITAT VISHAKAPATNAM AY 2013-14. In Favour of Assessee.
-
Section 159. The assessment made on dead person, on the face of it, be a nullity in law. In the case in hand, we find that when the factum of death was brought to the notice of the authorities below, instead of substituting the legal heirs of the assessee in the file of the Revenue both the authorities below proceeded with and finalized the assessment against the assessee, Late Ghanshyam H Parsana, since deceased which is unlawful, arbitrary, erroneous and bad in law. LATE GHANSHYAM H PARSANA vs. ITO. Order date Aug 31, 2020. AY 2006-07. In favour of assessee. ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH ‘C’
-
Section 148, 147:Client Code Modification is reason to suspect and not reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Re-assessment is quashed. STRATAGEM PORTFOLIO (P.) LTD. vs. DCIT. ITAT DELHI BENCH AY 2010-11. In favour of Assessee.