Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Rambhajo’s v. ACIT (2019) 198 TTJ 142 / 175 DTR 161 (Jaipur) (Trib.)

S. 271AAB : Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st July, 2012–Levy of penalty is not mandatory – Merely on the basis of surrender the levy of penalty is not justified. As regards cash found in the Couse of search which was not disclosed in the books of account, levy of penalty was confirmed.

Punjab Institute of Medical Science v. Dy. CIT (2019) 176 DTR 391/ 199 TTJ 271 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal Powers-Stay-Penalty–Concealment– Quantum appeal pending before Tribunal–AO directed not to pass final penalty order – However, penalty proceedings not stayed. [S. 271(1)(c)]

Punjab State Co-Operative Milk Produce Federation Ltd. v ACIT (2019) 197 TTJ 642/ 174 DTR 155 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal–Powers-Remand with Directions– Consequential enhancement is held to be valid. [R. 8D]

Ratnagiri District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v DCIT (2019) 197 TTJ 649/175 DTR 327 ( Pune) (Trib.)

S. 148 : Reassessment–Notice–Return filed in response offering lesser income- Assesse cannot raise fresh independent claims having effect of reducing income already declared. [S. 147]

Ambey Construction Co. v. ACIT (2019) 176 DTR 396 / 198 TTJ 969 / 71 ITR 422 (Asr.)(Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment–Reasons recorded mentioned incorrect amount – No reason to believe–Reassessment is held to be bad in law. [S. 148]

Ratnagiri District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 197 TTJ / 175 DTR 327 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment–After the expiry of four years–No additions sustained on the reasons recorded–Reassessment is bad in law . [S. 148]

ITO v. Shanti Constructions (Agra)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org

S. 145 : Method of accounting-Project Completion Method-Percentage Completion Method-Project completion method is held to be valid- Deletion of addition in respect of advance received from customers is held to be valid. [S. 145(3)]

Dy. CIT v. First Future Agri & Developers Ltd. (2019) 176 DTR 151 / 198 TTJ 1014 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 143(3) : Assessment–Amalgamation–Merger -Assessment order passed in the name of non-existent entity–Held to be invalid. [S. 143(2)]

Satish Kumar v. ITO (2019) 198 TTJ 114 / 175 DTR 121 (Asr.)(Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Bank statement cannot be considered as books maintained by assessee-Addition is held to be not valid.

ACIT v. Star India (P) Ltd. (2019) 176 DTR 409 / 199 TTJ 125 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits–All details regarding cable operators available on record–All deposits received in cheque which were subsequently refunded back- Deletion of addition is held to be justified.