Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


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)

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]