Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Karia Hareshbhai Bhagwandas, HUF v. ITO (2024)110 ITR 78 (SN) (Ahd)(Trib)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Best judgement assessment-Dismissed ex-parte-Matter restored to Assessing Officer for assessment afresh. [S. 144, 147, Form No 26AS.]

Global Green Company Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2024)110 ITR 29 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Not adjudicated on merits-Filed written submissions-Order is set aside and grounds restored to him for decision on merits, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard-Appeal filed before Bangalore bench-Time spent in filing appeal before Bangalore Bench is to be excluded-Delay in filing appeal is condoned.[S. 254(1)), Limitation Act, 1963, S.5]

Babubhai Ramanbhai Patel v. Dy. CIT (2024)110 ITR 39 (SN)(Ahd) (Trib)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Ex-parte order-Duty of Commissioner (Appeals) to decide merits of each point arising in appeal-Matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for adjudication afresh on merits after giving assessee opportunity of hearing. [S.250(4) 250(6)]

Padmakar Vishwas Date v. ITO (2024)110 ITR 48 (SN)(Pune)(Trib)

S. 246A : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Appealable orders-Only those specifically mentioned in Section-Fee-Default in furnishing the statements–Letter of ITO to assessee for recovery of outstanding demand-Not appealable. [S.234E]

Kotyala Sujatha (Smt) v. ITO (2024)110 ITR 12 (SMC) (SN) (Vishakha)(Trib)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Unexplained investments-Survey-Payment made to vendor under Registered sale-cum-General power of Attorney agreements-Amounts received as advances from 30 Persons-Only part of sum confirmed-Agreeing to addition of balance as unexplained investment-Vendor unilaterally cancelled all General Power of attorney-cum-sale agreements by registered cancellation deeds and took back possession of property on ground that he had not received any consideration from assessee-Registered cancellation of sale deed is not valid without decree of Civil Court Rejection of rectification application is valid.[S.69,133A, Specific Relief Act, 1963, S. 31, 32, 33, Registration Act, 1908,]

Orient Craft Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024) 110 ITR 622 (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Intimation-Appeal against intimation withdrawn on ground return selected for scrutiny-Regular assessment on scrutiny made without taking into account disallowances proposed in intimation-Rectification order in respect of delayed deposit of employee contributions to the provident fund and employees Stat Insurance-Change of law-No merger of orders passed under intimation and regular assessment-Rectification is proper.[S.143(1), 143(3)]

Ravi Badalia v. Dy. CIT (2024) 110 ITR 329/228 TTJ 291 (Kol) (Trib)

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-Unabated assessment-No incriminating material found during search-Addition based on loose sheets is unsustainable.[S. 132, 132(4), 153A]

Poonam Promoters And Developers P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2024)110 ITR 28 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 153A: Assessment-Search-No incriminating material is found-Addition is deleted. [S. 148]

Khanna Infrabuild P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024) 110 ITR 161 / 227 TTJ 97 / 233 DTR 17 (Chd)(Trib)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search-Cost of construction of hotel building-Original assessment completed and not abated on date of search-No incriminating material is found-Reference to Departmental valuation officer is not valid-Addition is deleted-Cost of construction of hotel building prior to commencement of hotel business-Capital invested by shareholders-Addition is deleted. [S. 69, 132, 143(2)]

Bee Pee Rollers P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2024) 110 ITR 402 (Cuttack) (Trib) Bajrangbali Re-Rollers P.Ltd v. Asst. CIT (2024) 110 ITR 402 (Cuttack) (Trib) Bajrangbali Steel Industries P.Ltd v. Asst. CIT (2024) 110 ITR 402 (Cuttack) (Trib)

S. 153A: Assessment-Search-Bogus purchases and sales-No evidence was found during search or in course of assessment proceedings to prove sellers and buyers bogus-Profit estimated on unproved purchases and 5 Per Cent. profit on unproved sales is held to be not proper.[S.69C]