Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


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) ]

Ashokkumar Kalubhai Nakrani v. ITO (2020)82 ITR 7 (SN) (Surat) (Trib)

S. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) -Duties – Ex -parte order -Mandatory procedure to formulate points in dispute and thereafter record reasons on such points — Failure to appear on appointed day , CIT (A ) cannot dismiss the appeal in Limine – He ought to have decided on merits . [ S. 131, 250(6) ]

Frontier Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020)82 ITR 25 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)

S. 153A : Assessment – Search- No incriminating material was found in the course of search – Addition is held to be not valid [ S.37(1) 132, 143(3) ]

Vipul Virendrakumar Patel v. ITO (2020)82 ITR 32 (SN)(Ahd ) (Trib)

S. 147 : Reassessment – Cash deposit in bank in excess of Rs. 10 lakhs – Salary income lower than the threshold limit – Information available with Assessing Officer vague and without any proper identification and quantification of escaped income — Reassessment is held to be not valid [ S.148 ]

Narayan Singh, HUF v. ITO (2020)82 ITR 18 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)

S. 147 : Reassessment – Capital gains- HUF – Individual – No direction was given buy the Appellate Tribunal – Reassessment is held to be not valid .[ S.148 ]

Ramotar Singh, HUF v. ITO (2020)82 ITR 20 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib)

S.147: Reassessment- After the expiry of four years- Capital gains- No failure to disclose any material facts – The reason must specify the nature of default or failure on the part of the assessee- Reassessment is not valid [ S.45 , 148 ]