Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


ACIT v. Motisons Jewellers Ltd. (2023)104 ITR 304 (Jaipur)(Trib)

S. 145 : Method of accounting-Without show cause notice rejection of books oof account is bad in law-Books of accounts rejected u/s. 145(3) without issuing any Show Cause Notice and framing assessment u/s. 143(3) and not u/s. 144 indicates that assessment is bad in law-Purchases verified by AO and found to be genuine and purchases correctly recorded in books of accounts and stock register, books of accounts cannot be rejected-Cash sales and cash deposited in bank was held to be genuine and where assessee maintains proper books of accounts audited by Charaterd Acountant-Stock register, CIT(A) was not justified by estimating income by applying NP Rate and books of accounts were to be accepted. [S. 68 ,115BBE, 143(3) 144, 145(3)]

DCIT v. H.K Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 103 ITR 12 (SN)(Ahd) (Trib)

S. 145: Method of accounting-Accrual system of accounting-Interest income received during the relevant AY to be taxed in the said AY when assessee follows accrual system of accounting

Abhinav Malik v. ITO [2023] 105 ITR 62 (SN) (Chd) (Trib)

S. 145 : Method of accounting-Non accounting of expired stock as part of opening stock-no evidence of sale of obsolete stock-notional estimation of profit for not showing the obsolete stock as part of opening stock unjustified. [S. 37]

Blue Stampings And Forgings Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2023)101 ITR 81 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)

S. 145 : Method of accounting-Rejection of books of accounts-Audited books not declared to be incorrect-Rejection solely on the basis of photocopies of bills produced instead of original-Rejection of books not sustainable.[S. 145(3)]

Colgate-Palmolive (India) Ltd. v ACIT (2023) 149 taxmann.com 177/ 103 ITR 51 (SN)(Mum)(Trib)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Assessment-Limitation-Eligible assessee-International Transactions-Orders Passed by TPO Beyond limitation period-therefore, Assessee is Not an “Eligible Assessee” as per 144C(15)(b) of the Act-extended time period of 12 months not available-as a consequence thereof, Regular Assessment Order was also barred by Limitation and not sustainable.[S.92CA(3), 144C(15)(b),153]

Amadoroco Ltd. v. ACIT (IT (2023) 200 ITD 415 (Delhi(Trib.)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Limitation-No variation is proposed-Extended period is not available for concluding assessment-Draft assessment order is not required to be issued-Order is barred by limitation-DTAA-India-Cyprus .[S. 153 (1), Art. 11(2)]

Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd. v. DCIT (2023) 200 ITD 226 (Bang (Trib.)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Transfer pricing-Draft assessment order-Failure to give effect to the direction of DRP-Order was quashed.[S. 144c(10) 144C(13)]

Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. v .Dy. CIT (2023)101 ITR 29 (SN)(Mum)(Trib)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-International Transaction-Limitation-Assessment order passed beyond one month from the end month in which directions of DPR received-Relaxation under TOLA Act not applicable-Assessment order is barred by limitation. [S. 144B 144C(13),147, 148]

Mohammad Sidiq Mushtaq Ahmed v. Add. CIT (2023)105 ITR 63 (SN)(Amritsar) (Trib)

S. 144: Best judgment assessment-AO estimating profits at 8 per cent., CIT(A) observed that turnover above turnover limit for presumptive taxation but restricting profits to 5 per cent. Matter remanded back to AO stating that Authorities bound to disprove claim with corroborative documentary evidence after granting assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

Raj Dev v. ITO (2023)105 ITR 65 (SN) (Amritsar) (Trib)

S.144: Best judgment assessment-Natural Justice-Cash Credits–Statements of witnesses relied upon without providing opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, assessment not sustainable. (68, 131, 144)