Bombay High court: Section 147 – Reopening – Lenders had shown very less income in the ITR – Held reopening is bad on account of change of opinion – High Court shows indulgence towards AO, refrains from issuing notice for perjury and imposing costs for making wrong statement in reply. Reopening was done beyond fours years on the… Read More ...

---

Mumbai Tribunal : S. 143(1) : Assessment -Adjustment based on Audit report - Employees contribution to provident fund-Amendment in Finance Bill 2021-Adjustment is not justified. [S. 2(24(x), 36(1)(va), 43B] Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that adjustment made by the CPC on the basis of Audit report is not valid as it is contrary to… Read More ...

---

ITAT Mumbai: The Assessing Officer-CPC has used a standard reason to the effect that “As there has been no response/the response given is not acceptable, the adjustment(s) as mentioned below are being made to the total income as per provisions of Section 143(1)(a)”, and has not even struck off the portion inapplicable. To put a question to… Read More ...

---

Bombay High Court : S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Change of opinion- Payment to related parties-Incentives to senior employees- Difference in VAT return and Turnover as per profit and loss account-Reconciliation-Questions asked in the course of original assessment proceedings-No discussion in the assessment order- Reassessment notice was quashed. [S. 40A(2)(b), 148, Art. 226] The assessment of the petitioner… Read More ...

---

Bombay High Court: Reopening within four years – deemed rental income on stock in trade & Section 43CA on difference in Agreement value and stamp value – issues examined in original assessment proceedings- change of opinion – reopening is bad in law. Reopening was done on two issues. The first issue was that petitioner has, in the profit… Read More ...

---

Bombay High Court: If NFAC is a party respondent, the cause title will state NFAC c/o. concerned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and that Principal Commissioner of Income Tax shall accept service on behalf of NFAC. Read More ...

---

Bombay High Court : S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue- Payment to specified persons-Revision proceedings cannot travel beyond the reasons given in show cause notice- 0rder of Tribunal is affirmed. [S. 40A(2)(b)] Dismissing the appeal of the revenue, the Court held that, where the show cause notice under section 263 of the Act suggested only 2… Read More ...

---

Supreme Court of India: Haris Marine Products Vs Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) Limited (Supreme Court) Date-25th April,2022 Sub-When goods can be said to have been despatched/shipped in case of Marine Insurance guaranteeing default in payment by the Overseas Buyer. An interesting issue arose in this case when three judges bench of Supreme Court was called upon to decide… Read More ...

---

Bombay High court : PCIT Vs Universal Music India Pvt Ltd(Bombay High Court) Date-19th April,2022 Sub-Whether CIT in terms of power available u/s 263 can travel beyond the terms of Show cause notice without giving any opportunity of hearing and ratio of judgement of Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200(SC). The… Read More ...

---

ITAT, Cuttack: Approval given under section 53D by the JCIT for passing assessment orders is without application of mind as the JCIT has not mentioned in the approval order that he has gone through the relevant assessment records and draft assessment order for granting approval. Read More ...

---