Income Tax

• 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.