-
Demonetisation, Section 115BBE, 69, 154, 133A- ITAT- Jaipur- on 9 June, 2020 held that the provisions of section 115BBE which are contingent on satisfaction of requirements of section 69 cannot be independently applied by invoking the provisions of section 154 of the Act when provisions of section 69 have been invoked by the Assessing officer while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) and at the same time, he has failed to apply the rate of tax as per section 115BBE of the Act. ACIT… vs Shri Sudesh Kumar Gupta, Alwar. In Favour of the assessee
-
Section 54F, 139(4) ITAT, Jaipur on 6th march, 2020 Respectfully following the judgement of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shankar Lal Saini [2018] 89 taxmann.com 235(Raj) held that even amount deposited in Capital Gain Account Scheme before filing of return u/s 139(4) shall also be allowed for deduction as per provisions of sub- section 4 of section 54F of the Act. Smt. Renu Jain, New Delhi vs Ito. AY 2011-12
-
Rule 3A r.w.s sub-clause (b) of clause (ii) of the proviso to sub-clause (vi) of clause (2) of section 17 How to get a hospital approved so that tax exemptions can be obtained by employee for medical costs incurred by employer in the prescribed treatment.
-
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 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 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.
-
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA on 5th June, 2020 held that the taxing statutes are subject to the rule of strict interpretation, and the benefit of ambiguity in case of an exemption notification or an exemption clause must go in favour of the revenue; and the same principles would apply in relation to Section 80-O of the Act. Constitution Bench decision in Dilip Kumar & Co. (supra), RAMNATH & CO. Vs CIT.
-
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
-
Section 43(1), 143(3), 263 ITAT KOLKATA on May 29, 2020 hold that the industrial promotion assistance it received was on capital account.