-
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 145 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA on May 5, 2020 held that There cannot be any dispute to the fact that every assessee being entitled to arrange its affairs and follow the method of accounting, which the Department has earlier accepted. Further if assessee is in the business of taking land, putting up commercial building thereon, letting out such building with all furniture as his profession or his business then notwithstanding the fact that he has constructed building and he has also provided other facilities and even if there are two separate rental deeds, it does not fall within the income from house property. CIT vs. PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS PVT. LTD. AY 2005-06
-
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
-
Section 153C- Supreme Court of India on on 5 March, 2020 Before issuing notice under Section 153C of the Act, the Assessing Officer of the searched person must be “satisfied” that, inter alia, any document seized or requisitioned “belongs to” a person other than the searched person. If the satisfaction note recorded under Section 153C of the Act in respect of the assessee, i.e., a third party, hold invalid entire proceedings taken there under is null and void. However, in the case where the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the other person is the same, it is sufficient by the Assessing Officer to note in the satisfaction note that the documents seized from the searched person belonged to the other person i.e; the assessee. In the case of M/S. Super Malls Private Limited. vs PCIT. AY 2008-09
-
Section 2(14): Income earned by the assessee constitute business income not Long Term Capital Gains reason that the assessee has always shown it as closing stock of agricultural land in the balance sheets and the object is of property business. Following contention of the assessee was not accepted the land is always valued at cost, period of holding for 13 years, accepting by deptt for deriving of agricultural income from the land. KOHLI ESTATES PVT. LTD. vs. ITO ITAT DELHI on May 5, 2020 AY 2011-12.
-
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
-
If the Notice u/s 143(2) issued by Income tax Officer was having no Jurisdiction at the time of issue of the notice then this is not a valid notice as it suffers from an inherent lacuna affecting his / its jurisdiction. It is not a curable defect u/s 292BB. The consequent order passed u/s 143(3) dated 29.12.2017 was legally unsustainable and therefore is null in the eyes of law and therefore quashed. ITO vs Mr.P N Krishnamurthy ITAT Bangalore on 27 April, 2020.
-
Article on NOTICE U/S 143(2)- Circumstances when notice U/s 143(2) hold as non service- resulting that assessment framed is invalid and accordingly quashed.
-
TDS Rate is changed from 14.5.2020. So click for getting new rate.
-
Decision SUPREME COURT OF INDIA on MAY 13, 2020 on the issue when original evidence is not available. JAGMAIL SINGH & ANR. V KARAMJIT SINGH & ORS.