Latest Posts

#Penny_Stock ITAT CHENNAI on Mar 4, 2020 hold that the A O shall require the assessee; to establish who, with whom, how and in what circumstances the impugned transactions were carried out etc., to prove that the impugned transactions are actual, genuine etc. The assessee shall comply with the A.O’s requirements as per law. The Assessing Officer shall also bring on record the role of the assessee in promoting the company and relationship of the assessee with other promoters, role of the assessee in inflating the price of shares, etc. as had been held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Aravind Nandial Khatri Vs. I.T.O referred to supra.

#Penny_Stock ITAT CHENNAI on Mar 4, 2020 hold that the A O shall require the assessee; to establish who, with whom, how and in what circumstances the impugned transactions were carried out etc., to prove that the impugned transactions are…
Read more

10(38), AY 2015-16, CHENNAI ITAT

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA on Mar 19, 2020 held that Section 143(1-A) can only be invoked when the revenue discharged the burden of proving that the assessee has attempted to evade tax which may be discharged by the Revenue by establishing facts and circumstances from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the assessee has, in fact, attempted to evade tax lawfully payable by it. Hence the Ld. AO cannot mechanically apply the provisions of Section 143(1-A) after issuing intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA on Mar 19, 2020 held that Section 143(1-A) can only be invoked when the revenue discharged the burden of proving that the assessee has attempted to evade tax which may be discharged by the Revenue by…
Read more

143(1-A), 143(1), 143(1)(a), Supreme Court

ITAT INDORE held on Mar 19, 2020 fee u/s 234E cannot be levied in the statement processed u/s 200A up to 31.05.2015.

ITAT INDORE held on Mar 19, 2020 fee u/s 234E cannot be levied in the statement processed u/s 200A up to 31.05.2015. M/S.OSWAL COMPUTERS & AMP CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) AND ANR. …
Read more

234E, AY 2013-14, Indore Tribunal

ITAT DELHI held on Mar 19, 2020 that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. M/S GIRI BUILDWELL PVT LTD. vs. ITO

ITAT DELHI held on Mar 19, 2020 that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment…
Read more

271(1)(c), 271(1)(c), AY 2009-10, Delhi, Delhi Tribunal, In Favour of Assessee, ITAT, Penalty, penalty 271(1)(c), penalty proceeding/s 271(1)(c) pending

ITAT LUCKNOW ने Mar 19, 2020 को फेसला दिया कि रेवेन्यू रिकॉर्ड में दर्ज खेती की जमीन पर लगाए चावल प्लांट सहित बेचने पर केवल प्लांट और प्लांट के लिए ली गई जमीन पर केपिटल गेन टैक्स लगेगा बाकी खेती की जमीन अगर खेती की जमीन धारा 2(14) में आती है तो कोई टैक्स नहीं लगेगा।

रेवेन्यू रिकॉर्ड में दर्ज खेती की जमीन पर लगाए चावल प्लांट सहित बेचने पर केवल प्लांट और प्लांट के लिए ली गई जमीन पर केपिटल गेन टैक्स लगेगा बाकी खेती की जमीन अगर खेती की जमीन धारा 2(14) में आती…
Read more

2(14), AY 2011-12, LUCKNOW ITAT

BOMBAY HIGH COURT on 14 February, 2020 hold that when an order has been passed without considering the reply and on the ground that no reply is filed, the impugned order will have to be set aside and the proceedings will have to be restored to the stage of show cause notice.

BOMBAY HIGH COURT on 14 February, 2020 hold that when an order has been passed without considering the reply and on the ground that no reply is filed, the impugned order will have to be set aside and the proceedings…
Read more

Bobmay High Court, GST

ITAT – Bangalore on 13 December, 2019 held that Penny Stock-When proved that share transactions are tailor made then the submission that transactions are through recognised stock exchange, through banking channels or not allowed cross examination are not acceptable. The claim is required to be proven to be illegitimate by providing all relevant documents to establish sound financial of alledged companies and that fluctuation in price was market driven and to establish genuineness of sale and purchase of alledged scripts

ITAT – Bangalore on 13 December, 2019 held that Penny Stock-When proved that share transactions are tailor made then the submission that transactions are through recognised stock exchange, through banking channels or not allowed cross examination are not acceptable. The…
Read more

Bangalore Tribunal, Penny stock

ITAT Mumbai on 16th March 2020 held that In case of bogus bill found where actual purchases were made by cash, method of peak credit as adopted by AO would not be a suitable method rather an adhoc estimated addition would meet cause of justice

MANUBHAI GEMS PRIVATE LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITAT BOMBAY BENCH ‘E’ AMARJIT SINGH, JM & MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM. ITA No. 7301/Mum/2019 Mar 16, 2020 Section 69C, 143(1) AY 2010-11 Decision in favour of: Assessee Cases Relied: CIT…
Read more

143(1), 69C, AY 2010-11, In Favour of Assessee, ITAT Mumbai

ITAT Mumbai on 16th March 2020 held that to make addition in Section 69C it is postulated that source of expenditure incurred not found satisfactory by Ld. AO. When purchases were reversed by the assessee in subsequent years and the transactions of purchases as well as sales were stated to be mere paper entries. The such stock purchased was reflected in closing stock. Thus it is circular transactions and are mere paper entries and no addition can be made u/s 69C.

MANUBHAI GEMS PRIVATE LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITAT BOMBAY BENCH ‘E’ AMARJIT SINGH, JM & MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM. ITA No. 7301/Mum/2019 Mar 16, 2020 Section 69C, 143(1) AY 2010-11 Decision in favour of: Assessee Cases Relied: CIT…
Read more

143(1), 69C, AY 2010-11, ITAT Mumbai

ITAT Mumbai on 16th March 2020 held that the Additions merely on the basis of statements made during survey proceedings u/s 133A would not hold much evidentiary value unless the same were backed up by some cogent corroborative material.

ITAT Mumbai on 16th March 2020 held that the Retraction of a statement of a particular person by another person statement is bad and disregarded for all purposes. ITAT Mumbai on 16th March 2020 held that the Additions merely on the…
Read more

69C, AY 2010-11, ITAT Mumbai