Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Delhi Agroha Vikas Trust v. CIT (E) (2020)83 ITR 26 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 12AA : Procedure for registration-rust or institution-Delay of 158 days in filing the appeal was condoned-Documents which was not produced before the CIT(E) was produced before the Appellate Tribunal-Matter remanded. [S. 12AA, 80G, 253, 254(1)]

Dy. CIT (LTU) v. EXL Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2020)83 ITR 11 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 10B : Export oriented undertakings-Sale of scrap-Entitled to deduction.

Dy. CIT v. Grasim Industries Ltd. (2020) 83 ITR 1 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Sales tax subsidy-For enabling to expand or modernize its existing unit-A capital receipt not taxable.

Arvind Kumar Arora v. ITO (2020)82 ITR 28 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 271B :Penalty- Failure to get accounts audited -Reasonable cause – May – Levy of penalty is held go be not justified .

Piramal Healthcare Ltd. v .Dy. CIT (2020)82 ITR 47 (SN)(Mum) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Disallowance of expenses on estimate basis – Capital or revenue –Debatable issue – Levy of penalty is not justified – Disallowance was deleted -Levy of penalty is not justified . [ S.14A ]

Arvind Kumar Arora v. ITO (2020)82 ITR 28 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – No specific charge recorded – addition on estimate basis – Appeal not filed against quantum addition – Levy of penalty is not justified . [ S.274 ]

Sanjay Tyagi v. Dy. CIT (2020) 82 ITR 44 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(b) : Penalty – Failure to comply with notices – Entire
additions deleted at appellate stage —Bona fide explanation- Penalty not leviable. [ S.142(1) ]

Manu Rai (Smt.) v. Dy. CIT (2020)82 ITR 22 (SN)(Indore) (Trib) Manish Rai v. Dy. CIT (2020)82 ITR 22 (SN)(Indore) (Trib) Meena Devi Rai (Smt.) v. Dy. CIT (2020)82 ITR 22 (SN)(Indore) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(b) : Penalty – Failure to comply with notices -Co-operating in assessment proceedings Attending- None of assessment orders ex -parte- Levy of penalty is held to be not valid .[ S.142(1) ]

Kuldeep v. ITO (2020)82 ITR 35 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)

S. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Powers – Additional evidence — Should have been admitted .[ S. 147, 148 , 250 (6) ]

Khimchand Okchand Bhansali v. ITO (2020) 82 ITR 34 (SN)(Mum) (Trib)

S. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Duties – Ex -parte order – Bogus purchases – If assessee fails to defend case Commissioner (Appeals) to adjudicate appeal on basis of material on record [ S. 250 (6), 254(1) ]