Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Krishna Gopal Raneja v. ITO (2024) 232 TTJ 1 ((UO) (Jodhpur) (Trib)

S. 249 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Form of appeal and limitation-Appeal filed before wrong forum-Delay of 657 days in filing an appeal-Form No 35 was filed before the AO instead of CIT(A)-Delay is condoned-Assessee is directed to deposit Rs. 5,000 to Prime Minister National Relief Fund within thirty days-CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal on merits. [S. 249(3),250,253(3), 254(1)]

Raj Technology v. Dy.CIT (2024) 232 TTJ 945 / 38 NYPTTJ 1350 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 153A: Assessment-Search-Dumb document-Quotations-Loose papers-Addition is deleted. [S.69C]

Rajinder Kumar v. ACIT (2024) 232 TTJ 261 / 243 DTR 297 / 38 NYPTTJ 776 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 153A: Assessment-Search-Information from Investigation wing-Foreign Bank-The assessee has accepted the relevant documents as genuine-Not necessary to follow the procedure laid down in S. 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Admissible as evidence-Deposits in HSBC London-Income from other sources-Art. 23(3) of Indo-UK DTAA is not automatically applicable-DTAA-India-UK-Bank account showed closed status-Notional interest income cannot be estimated. [S. 90, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, S.65B, Art. 23(3)]

Kavita Raneja v. ITO (2024) 232 TTJ 129 (UO) (Jodhpur) (Trib)

S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Notice was issued before the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year-It should have been issued after obtaining the satisfaction of Jt. CIT-The approval obtained from the Principal CIT is not valid. [S. 147, 148, 151(ii)]

Vinayak Traders v. ITO (2024) 232 TTJ 958 / 38 NYPTTJ 1205 (Jodhpur)(Trib)

S. 147: Reassessment-Incorrect information-Reassessment is not valid-Receipt on sale of goods-Addition is deleted. [S. 68, 148]

Subhash Runwal v. ITO (2024) 232 TTJ 99/ 243 DTR 177 / 38 NYPTTJ 1252 (SMC) (Pune)(Trib)

S. 147: Reassessment-Cash deposits-No addition was made in respect of reasons recorded-Issue which is not subject of recorded reason-Addition cannot be made-Additional ground is admitted.[S. 148, 254(1)]

Lalit Kumar Modi v. Dy.CIT (2024) 232 TTJ 430 / 243 DTR 385 / 38 NYPTTJ 1400 (Delhi)(Trib

S. 147 : Reassessment-Survey-Information from Investigation Wing-Re assessment is valid-Expenses through international credit cards-Addition is sustained.[S.69C, 133A, 148]

Dy.CIT v. Man Prakash Talkies (P) Ltd. (2024) 232 TTJ 673 / 38 NYPTTJ 1272 (Jaipur)(Trib)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts-Reassessment order is quashed. [S. 143(3)]

Dy.CIT v. Man Prakash Talkies (P) Ltd (2024) 232 TTJ 673 / 38 NYPTTJ 1272 (Jaipur)(Trib)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts-Re assessment is bad in law.[S. 45(2), 148]

Arunkumar Puthige v. ITO (2024) 232 TTJ 342 / 243 DTR 350 / 38 NYPTTJ 1284 (Cochin)(Trib)

S. 145A : Method of accounting in certain cases-Valuation of closing stock-Valuation of Inventories-If the AO add VAT to the closing stock value, then necessarily he has to add VAT amount in the opening stock value also and in that circumstances the net effect will be neutral-Addition of VAT amount to the closing stock value is not sustainable. [S.44AB]