Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Vijay Vasant Kulkarni v. ACIT (Bom)(HC) www.itatonlinee .org

S. 143(3):Assessment – Reassessment – After the expiry of four years -Rental income – Capital gains- Investment in a residential house – Change of opinion – Audit objection – TOLA – Disputed facts cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction -Availability of alternate remedy – Writ petition is dismissed with liberty to file an appeal. [S. 23, 45, 54F, 144B , 147148, 151, 250, Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act (TOLA), Art. 226]

Prashant Jaipal Reddy v. ITO ( Bom)( HC) www.itatonline.org

S.2(14)(iii): Capital asset-Agricultural land-Land is not used for agricultural purposes – Self- serving ledger entries- Property was sold before starting agricultural activity – Failed to file affidavit under Rule 10 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, pointing out that none of the Commissioner’s findings were contrary to the evidence on record or that the Commissioner or other authorities had grossly misread the documents on record- No substantial question of law – Order of Tribunal is affirmed . [ S. 45 , 260A , ITAT Rules , 1963 R. 10 .]

DCIT v. Lakhani Arman Shoes (P.) Ltd. (2024) 209 ITD 497 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not specifying the charge-Penalty order is quashed.

Anjuman-E-Shiateali. v. CIT (2024) 209 ITD 539 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Full value of consideration-Stamp valuation-Property is transferred to Trust in assessment year 2017-18-Revenue has accepted the valuation-No addition can be made on account of stamp valuation in the assessment year 2018-19. [S. 11(IA), 45, 50C]

Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd v. PCIT(2024) 209 ITD 117 (Kol) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Company-Book profit-Voluntary liquidation-Section 115JB is applicable even to a company under voluntary liquidation.[S.115JB]

Amitkumar Dhirajlal Joshi v. ITO (2024) 209 ITD 21 (Rajkot) (Trib.)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Ex-parte order-Principles of natural justice-Matter remanded to CIT(A). [S. 250(6)]

Gaurav Ajmera v. DCIT (2024) 209 ITD 260 (Indore)(Trib.)

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Order of CIT(A) is without DIN-Issue did not form part of appeal-Assessee could not rectify his own lapse or mistake in miscellaneous application-Cash found and seized-Demonetized notes-Addition is made not merely on the basis of statement-Miscellaneous application is rejected-Amendment made in section 115BBE by Amending Act, 2016 prescribing higher rate of tax would apply to whole previous year 2016-17 relevant to assessment year 2017-18 even if requisition under section 132A of the Act-Miscellaneous application is rejected-Cash found with assessee was made on 14-11-2016-Cash seized by department-To be adjusted against tax liability of assessee was in nature of self-assessment payment-Adjusted while computing the interest u/s 234A. [S.115BBE 132A 140A]

Gammon-SPSCPL JV. v. ACIT (2024) 209 ITD 400 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Ex-parte order-Method of accounting-Construction work-Rejection of books of account-AO estimated net profit at rate of 4 per cent of total contractual receipts as against 1 per cent-CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte-Matter is remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals) to decide issue on merit. [S. 145]

Chamanlal Shantaben Parekh & Rohini Suketu Parekh Public Charitable Trust v. ITO (2024) 209 ITD 406 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 249 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Form of appeal and limitation-Delay-Matter remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals) to deal with assessee’s application seeking condition of delay.[S. 11, 12A, 143(1), 154, 250]

Testec Asia Ltd. v. DIT (2024) 209 ITD 547 (Ahd.) (Trib.)

S. 199 : Deduction at source-Credit for tax deducted-Bank confirmation letter-Obtained PAN and claimed TDS credit in revised return-TDS credit could not be denied on procedural ground that TDS was not reflected in Form 26AS due to non-compliance with rule 37BA by third parties. [R. 37BA]