Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


CLE Private Ltd. v. DCIT (Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .org

S. 147: Reassessment – Limitation – TOLA did not apply as the limitation period expired before 20.03.2020- Notice under section 148 issued in 31-7-2022, which is beyond the prescribed time limit – Reassessment held to be invalid. [S. 68, 133(6), 142(1), 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 149, 151, 154, 115JB]

Indusind Media & Communications Ltd. v. ACIT 11(1) (Bom)(HC) www.itatonline.org .

S. 147: Reassessment – With in four years- Change of opinion – Alleged double deduction – No failure to disclose material facts – Reassessment is quashed and set aside. [S. 143(3), 148, 149, 151, 36(1)(vii), 37(1), Art. 226]

Dilip Gangaram Patil v. ACIT (Bom)(HC) www.itatonline.org .

S. 147: Reassessment – Revision -Notional rent – Income from house property – Change of opinion – Reopening based on issues already examined in revision proceedings – The original assessment order dt.31.12.2015) is no longer existed, as it was set aside under Section 263- Making the reopening procedurally invalid – Reassessment is quashed . [S. 22, 143(3), 148, 149, 151, 263, Art. 226]

H. K. Jewels Private Limited v. ADIT (Bom)(HC) www.itatonline.org

S. 132: Search and Seizure – Ultra vires seizure – Stock in trade – Writ petition disposed of with directions to avail alternative remedy under S. 132B of the Act . [S. 131(1A), 132(1)(iii), 132B, Art. 226]

Bankimbhai Natverbhai Patel v. ITO (Ahd.)(Trib.)(UR)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Deemed addition- Addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b)- Penalty is deleted. [S. 56(2)(vii)(b)]

Shri Shivaji Dattatray Sonawane v. ITO (Pune)(Trib) (UR)

S. 270A : Penalty for under -reporting and misreporting of income – Not specifying the limb – Levy of penalty is not valid . [ S.270A(8) 270A(9) ]

Shri Rajender Agarwal v. ACIT (Delhi)( Trib)(UR)

S. 143(3): Assessment – Validity – Addition on account of bogus LTCG – Addition based on some incriminating material found in a search at premises of third parties- Assessment order should have been framed as per provisions of section 153C- assessment order passed under section 143(3) is set aside being bad in law. [ S. 132, 143(1), 153A , 153C ]

Sureshchandra Seksaria HUF v. ITO (Mum) ( Trib.)(UR)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments – investment in the books of account – Evidences to prove genuineness of the purchase- Addition is deleted .[ S. 143(3), 145 ]

ITO v. Gitika Commodities Pvt. Ltd. ( Kol)(Trib) (UR)

S. 68. : Cash credits – Receipt of share capital/premium – Summons issued to investors returned unserved- Addition cannot be made under section 68 for the mere reason that summons issued to investors were returned unserved . [ S. 131 , 133(6)]

ITO v. Alpa Rajendra Jain (Mum) (Trib)(UR)

S. 68: Cash credits – long term capital gain –Penny stock – Sale consideration cannot be assessed as un explained cash credits .[ S.45 ]