Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Raju Verma v. Dy. CIT (2022) 98 ITR 15 (SN.) (Dehradun) (Trib)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search or requisition-Assessments not abating on date of search-No incriminating material-Addition cannot be made-Loss on sale of investments-Matter remanded. [S. 73]

Dy. CIT v. Roop Fashion (2022)98 ITR 419 (Chd) (Trib)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search or requisition-Unexplained Income-Cash deposited in the bank account during demonetization-Cash sales and realization of trade debtors-Recorded in books of accounts-No adverse comments by investigation department-No inflated purchases or suppressed sales-Additions not tenable. [S. 69A]

Dy. CIT v. Wind World India Ltd. (2022) 98 ITR 22 (Mum.)(Trib)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search or requisition-Undisclosed Income-Bogus Purchases from Hawala or Bogus dealers-Assessee not in possession of evidences/bills-Average ratio of bogus purchase to turnover 1%-Bogus purchase estimation on that basis-Additions justified.[S. 132]

Mohd. Arif v. ITO (2022) 219 TTJ 485 / 217 DTR 104 (Raipur)(Trib)

S. 153 : Assessment-Reassessment-Limitation-Order was passed beyond the period of nine months-Order is bad in law.[S. 147, 148, 153(2)]

Garg Acrylics Ltd. v. Add. CIT (2022)96 ITR 61 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 153 : Assessment-Limitation-Threshold monetary limit of Rs. 5 crores not available to characterise transactions with associated enterprises as specified domestic transactions-Order is nullity and barred by limitation. [S. 92BA, 92CA(3)]

Dy. CIT v. Clarion Technologies (P) Ltd. (2022) 216 TTJ 23 (UO) (Pune)(Trib)

S. 153 : Assessment-Reassessment-Limitation-Ante-dated order-Direction of Addl. CIT-AO in April, 2015 and signed by pre-dating it as 30th March, 2015-Assessment order was time barred and quashed. [S. 147, 148, 153(2)]

Ramesh Kumar v. ITO (2022) 95 ITR 79/ 218 TTJ 749 (Amritsar)(Trib)

S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-After the expiry of four years-Sanction of Prescribed Authority-Failure by Assessing Officer to obtain approval of prescribed authority Qua “Reasons to believe”–Reassessment Invalid-Assessment is liable to be quashed. [S. 147 148]

Shyam Gidwani v. ITO (2022)98 ITR 665 (Jaipur) (Trib)

S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-After the expiry of four years-Valid sanction-Sanction received from JCIT instead of PCIT/CCIT/CIT-Law in force on the date of issue of notice is applicable-Reassessment notice is valid-Source of deposit not substantiated-Addition as cash credit affirmed. [S. 68, 148, 151(2)]

Sohan Lal Bhatoya v. ITO (2022) 220 TTJ 1155 / 219 DTR 233(Amritsar)(Trib)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Improper manner of service of notice and non service of notice to the relevant database address of the assessee-Order was quashed. [S. 144, 282, 292BB, Order V, rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908]

Beekay Enterprises v. ACIT (2022) 95 ITR 21 (Pune)(Trib)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Recorded reasons not supplied–Assessment order was quashed. [S. 147, 68, 69C 133A]