S. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Powers – Additional evidence — Should have been admitted .[ S. 147, 148 , 250 (6) ]
Kuldeep v. ITO (2020)82 ITR 35 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)S. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Powers – Additional evidence — Should have been admitted .[ S. 147, 148 , 250 (6) ]
Kuldeep v. ITO (2020)82 ITR 35 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)S. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Duties – Ex -parte order – Bogus purchases – If assessee fails to defend case Commissioner (Appeals) to adjudicate appeal on basis of material on record [ S. 250 (6), 254(1) ]
Khimchand Okchand Bhansali v. ITO (2020) 82 ITR 34 (SN)(Mum) (Trib)S. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) -Duties – Ex -parte order -Mandatory procedure to formulate points in dispute and thereafter record reasons on such points — Failure to appear on appointed day , CIT (A ) cannot dismiss the appeal in Limine – He ought to have decided on merits . [ S. 131, 250(6) ]
Ashokkumar Kalubhai Nakrani v. ITO (2020)82 ITR 7 (SN) (Surat) (Trib)S. 153A : Assessment – Search- No incriminating material was found in the course of search – Addition is held to be not valid [ S.37(1) 132, 143(3) ]
Frontier Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020)82 ITR 25 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)S. 147 : Reassessment – Cash deposit in bank in excess of Rs. 10 lakhs – Salary income lower than the threshold limit – Information available with Assessing Officer vague and without any proper identification and quantification of escaped income — Reassessment is held to be not valid [ S.148 ]
Vipul Virendrakumar Patel v. ITO (2020)82 ITR 32 (SN)(Ahd ) (Trib)S. 147 : Reassessment – Capital gains- HUF – Individual – No direction was given buy the Appellate Tribunal – Reassessment is held to be not valid .[ S.148 ]
Narayan Singh, HUF v. ITO (2020)82 ITR 18 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)S.147: Reassessment- After the expiry of four years- Capital gains- No failure to disclose any material facts – The reason must specify the nature of default or failure on the part of the assessee- Reassessment is not valid [ S.45 , 148 ]
Ramotar Singh, HUF v. ITO (2020)82 ITR 20 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib)S. 144 : Best judgment assessment – Books of account audited – Income estimated on the basis of estimate basis is held to be not justified – Income has to be determined as per the audited books of account in accordance with law [ S.271B ]
Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020)82 ITR 31 (SN) (Hyd) (Trib)S.92C: Transfer pricing — Arm’s length price — Reimbursement of expenses- Addition is held to be not valid .
WM India Technical and Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020)82 ITR 37 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)S. 80P : Co-operative societies – Member of Federation- Bonus- Dividend —Bonus to be considered as dividend- Assessing Officer is directed to verify the nature of the bonus received .[ S.80P(2) (d)
Mysore District Co-Operative Milk Producers Society Union Ltd. v. A CIT (2020)82 ITR 11 (SN)(Bang) (Trib)