Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Satwinder Kaur Balachor v ITO (2023)105 ITR 14 (SN)(Chd) (Trib)

S. 144: Best judgment assessment-Liquor Business-Average Net Profit in this line of business which varied from 1 to 3 per cent. And applying net profit rate of 2 per cent is correct. No comparative data brought to rebut finding of AO in retail liquor business. [S.145]

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

S. 144 : Best judgment assessment-Demonetization-Books of accounts cannot be rejected without issuing any show cause notice-Stock register-Purcahses verified by the Assessing Officer-Rejectiion of books of account is not justified-Cash sales-Deposited in the Banks-Books of account is audited by Chartered Accountant-Not justified by estimating income by applying NP Rate and books of accounts were to be accepted. [S. 68, 115BBE, 133(6) 143(3), 145(3)]

Aman City Developers P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2023) 105 ITR 53(SN) (Chd) (Trib)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Scope of scrutiny-AO’s jurisdiction is not limited to just valuing the closing stock but also determining the project cost, project revenue and closing WIP at the end of reporting period-Thus, AO is justified in making addition by revaluing the stock. [S. 145]

Abbott India Ltd v. ACIT (2023) 202 ITD 287(Mum)(Trib)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Notice issued to a non-existing entity-Amalgamation-AO was informed-Assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity is void and liable to be quashed. [S. 144C]

Manjit Kaur v. ITO (2023) 103 ITR 40 (SN)(Chd)(Trib)

S. 143(2) : Assessment-Notice-Assessment order is invalid due to the non-issuance of the mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and quashed the assessment order. [S. 142(1) 143(3), 147,148]

Dy. CIT v. Barclays Global Service Centre P. Ltd. (2023)103 ITR 100 (Pune)(Trib)

S. 143(2) : Assessment-Notice-Validity-Amalgamation of companies-Effect-Fact of amalgamation brought to Assessing Officer’s notice during assessment proceedings-Assessment proceedings against amalgamating company after approval of amalgamation void ab initio-Amalgamated company’s participation in proceedings not an estoppel against law-Revenue’s appeal against order Of commissioner (appeals) infructuous.[S. 10AA]

Arun Kanhaiya Gupta v. ITO (2023)103 ITR 650 (Mum) (Trib)

S.143(2): Assessment —Notice-Jurisdiction-Condition precedent-Service of notice u/s. 143(2)-No proof regarding service of notice u/s. 143(2)-Assessment order liable to be quashed for want of jurisdiction.[S. 143(3)]

Girishbhai Nanjibhai Solanki v. ITO (2023) 200 ITD 686 (Rajkot)(Trib)

S. 143(2) : Assessment-Notice-Issue of notice beyond statutory limit-Assessing Officer has no power to issue notice under section 143(2) after expiry of 6 months from end of financial year in which return has been field-Reassessment is bad in law.[S. 143(3), 147,148,292BB]

Ambaradi Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. v. DCIT (CPC) (Rajkot)(Trib)

S. 143(1)(a) : Assessment-Intimation-Co-operative society-Denial on the ground of filing of belated return under section 139(4)-, Denial of deduction under section 80P vide intimation under section 143(1) was not valid in law. [S. 80P, 139(4), 143(1)(a)(ii)]

Lajwanti Manchanda Trust v. ITO (2023)103 ITR 647 (Trib)(Mum)(Trib)

S. 143(1)(a) : Assessment-Intimation-Family trust-Notification of assessing taxes without giving basic exemption and slab benefits to taxpayers who fall under certain associations of people or trust-using basic exemption and slab benefit, the assessing officer will redetermine tax liability. [S. 2(31)(v), 12A,154, Form 5, Form,7]