S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Violation of principle of natural justice-Adequate opportunity of hearing not given-Order of assessment is not valid-Order is set aside. [Art. 226]
Estra Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. NFACA (2022) 442 ITR 112 (Mad.) (HC)S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Violation of principle of natural justice-Adequate opportunity of hearing not given-Order of assessment is not valid-Order is set aside. [Art. 226]
Estra Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. NFACA (2022) 442 ITR 112 (Mad.) (HC)S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Opportunity of personal hearing not granted and reply of assessee is not considered-Violation of principle of natural justice-The word may in section 144B(7)(viii) should be read as must or shall and requirement of giving an assessee a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing is mandatory-Matter remanded. [S. 142(1) 143(3 156, Art. 226]
Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. UOI (2022)442 ITR 101 / 285 Taxman 447 / 211 DTR 10 / 325 CTR 252 (Delhi)(HC)S. 144 : Best judgment assessment-Names struck off from Register of Companies-Grant of time to respondents to file counter-Affidavits-Assessment order stayed. [S. 147, Art. 226]
Kaushik Kumar Gupta v. ITO (2022) 442 ITR 449 (Delhi)(HC)S. 143(3) : Assessment-Permanent account number-Draft assessment order-Amalgamation-Observation made by single judge is vacated-Assessee relegated to statutory remedy of appeal to be decided on merits. [S. 139A(5), 144C, Art. 226]
Mando Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (NO. 2) (2022) 442 ITR 443 / 214 DTR 121/ 327 CTR 644Mad.)(HC) Editorial : Mando Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (NO. 1) (2022)442 ITR 433/ 214 DTR 127 / 327 CTR 651/ 138 taxmann.com 340 (Mad) (HC) order of single judge is affirmed with deleting observations on merits.S. 132 : Search and Seizure-Right to livelihood-Issuance of look out Circular on mere suspicion that assessee had bank accounts and investments in other countries-Cannot be basis for holding that assessee being allowed to travel abroad would be detrimental to the economic interests of India-Absence of proceedings under any penal law being initiated against assessee at relevant point of time —Indefinite continuance of look out circular on mere suspicion-Infringement of right to livelihood [Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of tax Act, 2015 and the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Art. 21, 226]
Vikas Chaudhary v. UOI (2022) 442 ITR 119 (Delhi) (HC)S. 80P : Co-operative societies-Interest earned from deposits in other Co-Operative Banks-Entitled to deduction-Interest on deposits in Treasury-Not entitled to deduction. [S. 80P(2)(a)(i), 80P(2)(d)]
PCIT v. Peroorkada Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (2022) 442 ITR 141/ 217 DTR 246 / 328 CTR 443(Ker.)(HC) PCIT v. Vilappil Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (2022) 442 ITR 141/ 217 DTR 246/ 328 CTR 443 (Ker.)(HC)S. 80IA : Industrial undertakings-Infrastructure development-Operation and maintenance of Multi-Purpose berth in Port —Letter issued and agreement with Port authorities would satisfy requirement of law. [S. 119]
PCIT v. T. M. International Logistic Ltd. (2022) 442 ITR 87 / 211 DTR 281 / 325 CTR 462 / 286 Taxman 101 (Cal.)(HC)S. 54 : Capital gains-Profit on sale of property used for residence-Residential property standing in name of wife cannot be considered to be owned by assessee-Difference between section. 54 and section. 54F-Specified Bonds-Assessee can claim exemption under Section 54 as well as section 54EC. [S. 27, 45, 54EC, 54F, Hindu Succession Act 1956, S. 14]
Antony Parakal Kurian v. ACIT (2022) 442 ITR 38 (Karn.)(HC)S. 49 : Capital gains-Previous owner-Cost of acquisition-Capital asset acquired by will-Indexation-Cost of acquisition to be calculated taking into account cost of acquisition of previous owner of asset. [S. 2(29A), 2(42A), 45, 48, 55(1)(b)(2)(ii), Art. 226]
Rohan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO(IT) (2022)442 ITR 404 / 211 DTR 164 / 325 CTR 395 (Bom.)(HC)S. 48 : Capital gains-Computation-Full value of consideration-Adoption of fair market value based on guidelines issued by Government is justified. [S. 45, 50D]
PCIT v. Sarojini M. Kushe (Smt.) (2022) 442 ITR 327 / 210 DTR 172 / 286 Taxman 253 (Karn.)(HC)