ITAT, Delhi: Head Note: Where on the date of issuance of Notice u/s 148, AO was not in possession of the information received from other IT authority, which was the sole basis of reopening, AO could not have formed reason to believe that income of the assessee had escaped assessment. Thus, impugned reassessment notice being erroneous was… Read More ...

---

Supreme Court: Subsequent change in law is not "sufficient cause" & cannot be a ground for condonation of delay. In Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129, a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court overruled its earlier judgements on the issue of land acquisition process initiated by Delhi government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.… Read More ...

---

ITAT Mumbai: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 07/12/2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3) for the A.Y.2015-16. In the aforesaid case the assessee had declared income from transaction in derivatives (futures) transactions declaring total turnover of Rs.42,61,003/- and offered income u/s.44AD @ 8% during the… Read More ...

---

ITAT Mumbai: There were two Appeals filed. One by filed by the Assessee and another filed by the Department. The Assessee has filed an appeal against the CIT(A) Order u/s 250 of the Act dated 24th February 2023 who has restricted the addition to 12.50% from the addition of 100% of alleged bogus purchases made in the… Read More ...

---

ITAT Mumbai: Exemption u/s 54 duly available as construction of residential house completed within 3 years: ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee is eligible to claim exemption u/s. 54 of the Income Tax Act as the construction of residential house completed within three years from the relevant date. Facts- The assessee in its return of income claimed… Read More ...

---

ITAT Mumbai: This appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order of the ld. PCIT passed u/s 263 of the Income-Tax Act pertaining to AY 2017- 18. The ld. PCIT invoked the provision of section 263 of the Act on the ground that the AO has failed to conduct all necessary enquiries required and has… Read More ...

---

Bombay High Court: The assessee, during the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2010-2011, transferred 30,65,600 shares of United Phosphorus Limited (UPL) and 3,06,560 shares of Uniphos Enterprises Limited (UEL) both public listed companies to one Nerka Chemicals Private Limited (NCPL) by way of a gift in terms of Transfer Deed dated 26th February 2010. Since the shares… Read More ...

---

ITAT Mumbai: The explanation was there on the record and also explained before the ld. AO and ld. CIT(A), then we fail to understand what was the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the facts. Ld. AO has tried to draw his own inference in the reasons and tried to justify it without actual… Read More ...

---

Supreme Court: Ignoring the law laid down by a binding precedent and taking a view totally contrary to the same itself would amount to a material error, manifest on the face of the order. Ignoring the judgment of the Constitution Bench would undermine its soundness (i) As already discussed herein above, except the cursory reference in paragraph… Read More ...

---

ITAT Indore: Issue: Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be levied when the assessee had paid self-assessment tax before the issue of notice under section 148. BRIEF FACTS: The assessee failed to file the original return for the relevant year but paid self-assessment tax before a notice u/s 148 was issued… Read More ...

---