Latest Posts

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.‎

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….
Read more

2(14), 28, AY 2011-12, Delhi Tribunal, In favour of Revenue

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

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…
Read more

46A Rule, AY 2010-11, Decisions, Delhi, Delhi Tribunal

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.

Conclusion: 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…
Read more

143(2), 144, 147, 148, AY 2013-14, Bangalore Tribunal, In Favour of Assessee

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.‎

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. This article tries to solve following questions :- When there is non service of notice U/S 143(2)…
Read more

143(3), 143(3), 147, 148

TDS Rate is changed from 14.5.2020. So click for getting new rate.

Sno Sections Nature of Payment TDS Rate w.e.f 14.05.2020 to 31.3.2021 %) TDS Rate w.e.f 1.04.2020 to 13.5.2020 % If No Pan or Invalid PAN (Rate %) 1 192 Salaries- As per calculation and Slab Rate 30% 2 193…
Read more

192A, 193, 194, 194-I, 194A, 194DA, 194EE, 194K, Articles, Cases Income tax

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.

Decision SUPREME COURT OF INDIA on MAY 13, 2020 on the issue when original evidence is not available. It is trite that under the Evidence Act, 1872 facts have to be established by primary evidence and secondary evidence is…
Read more

65, 66, In Favour of Assessee, Indian Evidence Act 1872, Supreme Court

Economic Package on 13.5.2020 by Finance Minister Nirmala ‎Sitharaman

Economic Package on 13.5.2020 by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman 3 lakh crore Collateral-free Automatic Loan, Rs 20,000 crore loan for stressed MSMEs, Rs 50,000 crore ‘fund of funds’ to get listed on markets for MSMEs, definition of MSMEs altered Global Tenders to…
Read more

Articles, Economic packages

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

Conclusion 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…
Read more

54, 54F, AY 2016-17, Bangalore Tribunal, In Favour of Assessee

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 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…
Read more

148, 254, 69A-Unexplained money, 69B, AY 2000-01, AY 2004-05, In favour of Assessee (Partly), ITAT Surat

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.‎

Conclusion 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…
Read more

147, 148, HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY GOA BENCH, In Favour of Assessee