Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Abhimanyu Chaturvedi v. Dy. CIT (2023) 225 TTJ 313 / [2024] 159 taxmann.com 445 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search-Document Identification Number (DIN)-Assessment can be said to be made only when DIN is quoted on order before it is signed-DIN was not signed before assessment order is signed-Order is non-est-Service of incomplete assessment order on ITBA may be a case of non-service of order; assessment order does not become void for that reason. [ S. 143(3), 153]

ACIT v. Atul Kumar Gupta (2023) 225 TTJ 431 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search-Document found in the course of search-Presumption cannot be extended to material found at the place of somebody else-Assessment should have been under section 153C and not under section 153A-Undisclosed income-No incriminating material-Deletion of addition is affirmed. [ S. 132(4), 153C]

ACIT v. Kush Corporation (2023) 226 TTJ 55 (UO) (Surat)(Trib)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search-On money-Contents of the WhatsApp amongst partners-Statement of partner-Huge gap between date of communication and sale of flats-Deletion of addition is affirmed-Undisclosed income-On money-addition is sustained to the extent of 10 percent of on-money.[ S. 132]

Polisetty Somasundaram v. Dy. CIT (2023) 153 taxmann.com 591 / 226 TTJ 01 (Visakha)(Trib.)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search-Pendrive-Investigation agency only obtained a certificate about details of pen drive and person in whose custody it was seized and except those details nothing was there in certificate-Certificate was not completely filled up by revenue authorities-Four conditions stipulated in section 65B(2) i.e., (a) to (d) along with section 65B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 were not followed while obtaining certificate-Certificate is not a valid certificate in eyes of law-Pendrive could not be considered as admissible evidence as per provisions of section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. [ S. 132, Indian Evidence, Act 1872, S. 65B(2), 65B(4)]

Polisetty Somasundaram v. Dy. CIT (2023) 153 taxmann.com 591 / 226 TTJ 01 (Visakha)(Trib.)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search-Limitation-Panchnama-No seizure of books of account or document-Panchnama was drawn only for removal of restraint order under section. 132(3)-Assessment order is barred by limitation. [S. 132, 132(3) 153B]

Shyam Sunder Bhartia v. Dy.CIT (2023) 225 TTJ 837 (Lucknow) (Trib)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Transfer of case-Mandate of section 127 is not followed-Notice issued is without jurisdiction hence quashed.[ S. 92CA(2), 127, 144C(15), 144C(13), 147, 153(2)]

Rajlaxmi Petrochem (P) Ltd v. ITO (2023) 224 TTJ 1004 (Pune)(Trib)

S. 147 : Reassessment-No sanction was recorded on the date of issuance of notice-Reassessment is not valid-Notice under section 143(2) is not issued-Reassessment is quashed.[ S. 143(2), 148, 149,151]

Dy. CIT v. Ramesh Kumar Jain (2023) 226 TTJ 58 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Search and seizure-Information from DDI (Inv)-CIT(A) has quashed the reassessment on the ground that the assessment should have been farmed under section. 153A/ 153C of the Act-Reassessment was not done on the basis of search-Order of CIT(A) is set aside with the direction to decide a afresh in accordance with law.[ S. 132, 148,153A, 153C]

World Sport Group (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT(2023) 226 TTJ 282 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 147 : Reassessment-No tangible material-Addition is made substantive basis in another entity-Reassessment is quashed.[ S. 148, 153A]

Vodafone Idea Ltd. v Asst. CIT (2023) 149 taxmann.com169 / 226 TTJ 224 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Business income-Value of any benefit or perquisite, arising from exercise of business or profession-Merger-Demerger-Transfer of Passive Infrastructure Assets (PIA) to ICTIL and subsequent amalgamation into Indus Towers, and demerger of telecom undertaking of ABTL-Scheme approved by High Court-No colourable device-Provision of section 28 (iv) cannot be applied-Non-compete fee-Change of opinion-amount debited in P&L Account as Employees Stock Scheme had been disallowed as being a contingent liability-Change of opinion-Reassessment is not valid.[ S.28(iv), 37(1), 1115JB,148]