S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Source of investment-Accepted in original assessment proceedings-Change of opinion is not possible.
Kanta (Smt.) v. ITO (2024)111 ITR 77 (SN)(Delhi)(Trib)S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Source of investment-Accepted in original assessment proceedings-Change of opinion is not possible.
Kanta (Smt.) v. ITO (2024)111 ITR 77 (SN)(Delhi)(Trib)S. 153D: Assessment-Search-Approval granted by Joint Commissioner of Income-tax in the case of 49 assessees on the same date on which draft assessment order was passed by the AO-Non application of mind-Assessment order is invalid-CBDT Circular no. 3 of 2008 dated 12.3.2008.[S. 132, 153A]
SMW Ispat P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2024) 112 ITR 224 (Pune)(Trib.)/Dy.CIT v. Sangam Infratech P. Ltd (2024) 112 ITR 224 (Pune)(Trib.)S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-Satisfaction note-Date of satisfaction note is to be reckoned as date of handing over of materials for purpose of assumption of jurisdiction-Time limit of calculating six years was to be calculated from this date-Assessment year 2008-09 is time barred-No incriminating documents-Addition is deleted. [S. 68, 132]
CIT (Asst.) v. Enpro Telecom P. Ltd. (2024) 111 ITR 400 (Delhi)(Trib.)S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-No incriminating material is found-Addition is not valid [S.132, 153A]
Krishna Murari Choudhary v. ACIT, (2024) 111 ITR 262 (Ranchi)(Trib.)S. 153A: Assessment-Search-Unexplained expenditure-Payment of commission-Bogus sales-Gross profit offered to tax-Gross profit is available to set off-Unaccounted advances paid to employees-Only remaining amount is taxable-Stock-Valuation at average rate of method is acceptable-Addition is deleted-Undisclosed income is accepted-Further addition towards purchases is not justified. [S. 69, 69C, 132, 133]
Seo Lehenga House v Dy. CIT (2024) 111 ITR 681 (Chd)(Trib)S. 153A-Assessment-Search-Unabated assessment-No incriminating material-Addition is not valid.[S. 132]
ACIT v. Dynamic Infraplanners Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 112 ITR 174 (Delhi)(Trib.)S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Beyond three years-Specified Authority-Sanction by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Reassessment notice and order is bad in law.[S.148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 151(ii)]
Parinee Housing Pvt. Ltd v. Dy. CIT (Mum)(Trib)S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Additional ground-Legal issue-Time for issue notice under Section 143(2) against original return had not lapsed-Reassessment notice is bad in law-Limitation-Time-limit to be reckoned from date of return whether filed under Section 139(1) or 139(5) or in response to notice under section 142(1). [S. 139(1),139(2),139(5), 142(1), 143(2) 147]
Ubmc Trust Association v. ITO (E) (2024)111 ITR 66 (SN)(Bang)(Trib)S. 147 : Reassessment-Substantial difference in consideration shown on registered sale deed and sale agreement-Reassessment is valid-Cash credit-Unexplained investment-Source is established-Addition is deleted.[S. 68,69, 148]
Geeta Devi Sharma (Smt.) v. ITO (2024) 111 ITR 106 / 159 taxmann.com 483 (Jaipur)(Trib.)S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-No specific query was raised in the course of original assessment on which the reassessment is initiated-Reassessment is valid-Electrical installations-Entitle to depreciation at 15%-On merits additions are set aside to the file of Assessing Officer. [S. 2(47), 14A, 32, 40(a)(i), 148]
Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd v. DCIT (LTU) (2024) 112 ITR 582 (Chennai)(Trib.)