Latest Posts

No interference is required to be made in the issue of notice under old provisions of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act extended uptill 30th day of June, 2021. The petition of the assessee is dismissed by Chhattisgarh High Court on 23/08/2021 in the case of Palak Khatuja Vs Union Of India

Palak Khatuja Vs Union Of India Chhattisgarh High Court Appeal Number : W.P.(T) No. 149 of 2021 Date of Judgement/Order : 23/08/2021 Palak Khatuja Vs Union Of India (Chhattisgarh High Court) No interference is required to be made in the…
Read more

148, AY 2015-16, Chattisgarh High Court, Concealment of income, In favour of Revenue

September 11, 2021

Whether a reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) u/s Section 17(5)(h) is contemplated in relation to loss arising from manufacturing process. MADRAS HIGH COURT passed an order on the issue on 24/06/2021 and set aside the impugned order to the above extent. For full order kindly click the below link

Landmark Decision on GST Whether a reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) u/s Section 17(5)(h) is contemplated in relation to loss arising from manufacturing process. MADRAS HIGH COURT passed an order on the issue on 24/06/2021 and set aside the…
Read more

17(5)(h), In Favour of Assessee, madras High Court

September 1, 2021

Question: Q.The search in the premises of the assessees is on the basis of warrant issued in the name of B. The AO without applying his mind consciously and mandatorily had not stated in the satisfaction note that the seized documents belong to “other person” i.e; the assessee. The question is that without recording such a satisfaction can AO initiate proceedings against the “other persons i.e; the assessee” u/s 153C of the Act. ITAT Banglore Bench passed the order on Jul 30, 2021 in the case of ARSHAD ISPAT & ANR. vs. DCIT. Section 139, 147, 148, 149, 151, 153C

ARSHAD ISPAT & ANR. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. IN THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH ‘C’ N. V. VASUDEVAN, VP & B. R. BASKARAN, AM. ITA No. 926/Bang/2015, 928 & 929/Bang/2015, 930 & 931/Bang/2015 Jul 30, 2021 Section…
Read more

132, 153C, AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10, AY 2010-11, Bangalore Tribunal, borrowed satisfaction, In Favour of Assessee, incriminating material, Other person, Satisfaction, Satisfaction Note, Search and seizure

August 10, 2021

Q.Is confirming of dis-allowance for Delayed deposit of employees contribution to PF and ESI u/s 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act, 1961 despite the assessee contributing/depositing the same before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act is justified after amendments in Explanation 5 of the section 43B.

Q.Is confirming of dis-allowance for Delayed deposit of employees contribution to PF and ESI u/s 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act, 1961 despite the assessee contributing/depositing the same before the due date of filing of return of…
Read more

36(1)(va), 43B, Articles

Is confirming of dis-allowance for Delayed deposit of employees contribution to PF and ESI u/s 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act, 1961 despite the assessee contributing/depositing the same before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act is justified after amendmends in Explanation 5 of the section 43B. The ITAT- Kolkata in the case of Harendra Nath Biswas, Kolkata vs Dcit, Cir. 29, Kolkata on 16 July, 2021 ITA No.186/Kol/2021 decided the issue in favour of the assessee.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Kolkata Harendra Nath Biswas, Kolkata vs Dcit, Cir. 29, Kolkata on 16 July, 2021 ITA No.186/Kol/2021 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri P. M .Jagtap, Vice-President (KZ) and Shri…
Read more

36(1)(va), 43B, AY 2019-20, In Favour of Assessee, Kolkata tribunal

Section 147, 148, 143(3). If reopening within a period of four years of assessment u/s 143(3) then there is no bar for reopening of assessment If there is certain non-disclosure. But If reopening beyond four years for assessment already in u/s 143(3) then It must be established that the assessee has not disclosed fully and truly all material evidence with an intention to escape from the payment of tax. motive or intention on the part of the assessee for such non-disclosure is also a material ground. It is a case where the reopening beyond four years of assessment u/s 143(3) and the order of approval, which was validly granted, was produced before the Assessing Officer at the time of scrutiny and the Assessing Officer also accepted the approval order and granted exemption. Thus, the reason stated in the impugned proceedings that the assessee committed a mistake cannot be accepted. M/S.Kone Elevators (India) Pvt. … vs ACIT Madras High Court … on 16 June, 2021

Madras High Court M/S.Kone Elevators (India) Pvt. … vs ACIT… on 16 June, 2021 W.P.No.43662 of 2016 Conclusion Section 147, 148, 143(3). If reopening within a period of four years of assessment u/s 143(3) then there is no bar for…
Read more

143(3), 147, 148, AY 2009-10, madras High Court

Since books of account were not rejected, therefore, provisions of section 69B were wrongly invoked by AO. 2018 TaxPub(DT) 4842 (Raj-HC) CIT v. Gaurav Kumar Sharma on dated 12 October, 2017

2018 TaxPub(DT) 4842 (Raj-HC) CIT v. Gaurav Kumar Sharma INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Since books of account were not rejected, therefore, provisions of section 69B were wrongly invoked by AO. 2018 TaxPub(DT) 4842 (Raj-HC) CIT v. Gaurav Kumar Sharma on…
Read more

69B, AY 2008-09, RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

In E-Assessment order demand is raised without providing an opportunity by issue of show cause notice? Assessment void. In the case of RMSI PRIVATE LIMITED vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE HIGH COURT OF DELHI W.P.(C) 6482/2021 & CM APPL. 20366/2021 on dated Jul 14, 2021 Section 143(3), 144B(9) AY 2017-18

RMSI PRIVATE LIMITED vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE HIGH COURT OF DELHI MANMOHAN & NAVIN CHAWLA, JJ. W.P.(C) 6482/2021 & CM APPL. 20366/2021 Jul 14, 2021 Section 143(3), 144B(9) AY 2017-18 Decision in favour of: Assessee In E-Assessment order demand is…
Read more

143(3), 144B(9), 2019, Clause 5 (1) (viii), Clause 5 (x), E-Assessment Scheme

Even if the petitioner was not present before the Tribunal when the appeal was taken up for hearing, it could not have been dismissed. Dismissal of appeals by ITAT for non-persecution is wholly illegal and unjustified. Rule 24 of the 1963 Rules does not give power to the learned Tribunal to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. IN THE KERALA HIGH COURT in the case of Rabindra Kumar Mohanty v. Registrar, ITAT W.P.(C) No. 2487 of 2019 on dated 18 March, 2020. Section 254 IT Act and Rule 24 of Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963

Section 254 IT Act and Rule 24 of Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 IN THE KERALA HIGH COURT C.R. DASH & S.K. PANIGRAHI, JJ. Rabindra Kumar Mohanty v. Registrar, ITAT W.P.(C) No. 2487 of 2019 18 March, 2020 Even if…
Read more

Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, Rule 24

Income Tax Slabs 2021 & Tax Rates for FY 2020-21

income tax rates for FY 2021-22