-
Economic Package on 13.5.2020 by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman
-
Section 54 BANGALORE ITAT Decision on 8.5.2020: The deduction u/s 54 of the Act should not be denied merely because the name of assessee’s husband is mentioned in the purchase document, when the entire purchase consideration has flown from the assessee. Smt. Subbalakshmi Kurada Vs ACIT AY 2016-17
-
Section 69A, 69B, 148, 254 CHANDULAL AMRUTLAL SHAH (HUF) & ORS. vs. ITO May 4, 2020 ITAT SURAT AY 2000-01 & 2004-05. Supreme Court in the case of MCorp Global (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 309 ITR 434 (SC) held that It is well-settled that the Tribunal is not authorized to take back the benefit granted to the assessee by the Assessing Officer. It has no power to enhance the assessment. In view of the statutory provisions. AO cannot enhanced the income originally assessed under section 143 (3) in set-aside proceeding in consequence of direction of the tribunal.
-
Section 147, 148 ANAND DEVELOPERS vs. ACIT HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY GOA BENCH 1 Feb, 2020 Notice u/s 147 and order u/s 148 is quashed and set aside when a notice seeking to reopen assessment is beyond normal period of 4 years, in a case where the assessment has been made under Section 143(3) and the revenue failed to establish the precondition even prima facie that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for that assessment year.
-
Section 68- AY 2011-12- ITAT SURAT- May 4, 2020 When the assessee furnishes names and addresses of the alleged creditors and the GIR Numbers, the burden shifts to the Department to establish the revenue’s case and in order to sustain the addition the revenue has to pursue the enquiry and to establish the lack of creditworthiness and mere non-compliance of summons issued by the Assessing Officer under section 131 by the alleged creditors will not be sufficient to draw an adverse inference against the assessee. DCIT vs. KEJRIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.
-
Section 32, 37, 36(1)(iii), 37(1), 131, 133A, 56, 147 AY 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 After going through the various terms of the deed if it is loan/finance arrangement between the parties then the assessee is entitled only to claim interest as expenditure u/s 36 (1) (iii) and depreciation and is not entitled to claim the principal component of alleged lease rent paid as ‘revenue expenditure’ u/s 37(1). FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD. vs. ACIT ITAT CHANDIGARH May 6, 2020
-
The AO is not hand writing expert to distinguish the signature of the karigar as appearing in the salary register and this cannot be solitary ground to reject the books of accounts. No GP addition is sustained when no defects have been pointed out by the AO in the the relevant records produced by the assessee in form of export bills, purchased bills and cash books etc. along with books of accounts and also submit the reason of fall in GP.
-
Section 148-ITAT, PUNE BENCH-11 September, 2019 held that Reassessment—Validity—only on the basis of the some reasons to believe about the escapement of income. Existence of reasons for escapement of income are sine qua non to embark upon the assessment or reassessment under section 147 of the Act. Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani v. ACIT. AY 2009-10
-
Gujarat High Court on 11 February, 2020 held that if Employees contribution to PF account as well as ESI contribution deposited timely as per section 36(1)(va) then only the deduction is allowable. Kindly note that law as propounded by case laws is different in different States. Kindly further note that this is relating to Employee contribution not employer contribution. PCIT vs M/S Suzlon Energy Ltd.
-
ITAT HYDERABAD on 29th April 2020 held that the sale of the property by the Vendee cum AGPA-holder cannot be considered as sale of property by the assessee when the Vendee has paid the entire sale consideration and has taken possession of the property as the Vendee becomes the owner of the property u/s.53A of the TP Act and u/s.2(47) it is a transfer of the property. Further it is worth noting that except being described as the Vendor, the assessee is neither a signatory to the subsequent Sale Deed nor is he the recipient of any of the sale consideration. In SAMA OM REDDY vs. ITO