-
ITAT Ahmedabad held on 6.1.2020 that the provisions of section 68 cannot be applied in relation to the sales receipt as the sales receipt has already been shown in the books of accounts as income at the time of sale only particularly when the purchases have been accepted, then the corresponding sales cannot be disturbed without giving any conclusive evidence/finding. No addition can be made on this ground.
-
ITAT AHMEDABAD on Mar 11, 2020 held that 148 Notice issed in the name of dead person. One legal representative participated in proceedings. Raised objection 1st time in appeal. It is procedural mistake rectificable 292B to frame assessment in the name of all legal heirs as per the provisions of law after issue of notice u/s 148 to all legal representatives.
-
ITAT CHENNAI held on Mar 13, 2020 Disallowance of interest is valid when out of borrowed funds the assessee advanced interest free loan to subsidiary concern without commercial expediency.
-
Unless the bad debt is written off by debiting to the P&L account and the debtors’ account should be credited, the condition as contemplated u/s. 36(1)(vii) is not satisfied. judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. (supra) relied on by the assessee’s Counsel applies mainly to Banking companies Regarding allowability of Provision for bad debts. No infirmity was found in exercising power u/s 263 by CIT
-
ITAT BOMBAY on 13 March, 2020 hold that it is settled position of law that penalty u/s271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the additions as made by the AO was a pure estimate and nothing concrete as to bogus purchases were brought on records by the AO by making any further enquiries or investigation though the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the alleged bogus purchases from the Hawala. ITO vs. PREMKUMAR SHEHGAL
-
No Penalty 271(1)(c) ITAT Chandigarh held that since the income has already been declared in the valid revised return (though after service of Summons issued by ADIT (inv.)) filed within the limitation period prescribed for filing the same therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of the aforesaid income declared is not leviable and the same is accordingly ordered to be deleted. Penalty u/s 271AAC can be levied only when there is an addition or disallowance and which it is deemed that he has evaded the payment of tax for computing the penalty so leviable. Smt. Parkash Kaur, Ludhiana vs ACIT
-
Landmark decision by Supreme Court during Lock down period in the case of NDTV on 3rd April 2020. Appeal allow by holding that the notice u/s 148 is valid when the revenue discovered fresh tangible material. However no addition can be made when the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all material facts during assessment proceedings 143(3). The assessee must be put to notice of all the provisions on which the revenue relies upon. If the notice does not mention of second proviso of section 147 the court will not allow to treat as a notice invoking provisions of the second proviso of Section 147 of the Act.
-
ITAT COCHIN on Mar 13, 2020 held that if the assessee had sufficient own capital then he can utilize that fund for non business purposes and no disallowance out of interest on borrowed funds can be made with allegation of diversion of funds. ACIT Vs. vs. ABDUL REHMAN KUNJU & ANR.
-
On 20.3.2020 ITAT VISHAKAPATNAM hold that when the sale proceeds of joint venture are utilized for advancement of the objects without diversion, it does not violate the objects of the assessee. Hence it does not make the assessee disentitle for registration u/s 12AA(3).
-
ITAT KOLKATA on Mar 18, 2020 held that the assessment made u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act is invalid in the absence of any incriminating material found during course of search hence the addition made by AO in assessment completed was beyond scope.