- Welcome to itatonline.org Forum.
Recent posts
#1
Discussion / Re: validity of notices u/s 1...
Last post by satyanveshi - October 04, 2023, 09:20:32 AMQuote from: satyanveshi on October 04, 2023, 09:15:05 AMThough I have posted this query nearly one year back, it didnot attract any attention from the stake holders... Recently, I found a decision of Telangana high court in the case of kankanala Ravindra reddy on the same issue.. The notices issued by JAOs without following the procedure of faceless manner are found to be knocked down by the honourable high court... Other than, Telangana high court any other high court has given decision on similar lines or different lines...
#2
Discussion / Re: validity of notices u/s 1...
Last post by satyanveshi - October 04, 2023, 09:15:05 AMThough I have posted this query nearly one year back, it didnot attract any attention from the stake holders... Recently, I found a decision of Telangana high court decision in the case of kankanala Ravindra reddy on the same... The notices issued by JAOs without following faceless manner are found to be knocked down by the honourable high court... Other than, Telangana high court any high court has given decision on similar lines or different lines...
#3
Discussion / Double standard of orders of M...
Last post by Ashish kumar - July 11, 2022, 05:57:57 PMRecently I met one CBI officer & informed him about some members( CESAT), who are taking double views on same issue, he said a PE can be registered against such members without any approval of Home. He clarified that members of the Tribunal are not judges they are presiding officers and as per the Prevention of corruption act provisions if there is an apparent corruption then PE can be registered without any approval of Home and then if they failed to justify their action in PE FIR can be registered against them. He asked me example double yard stick, I quoted that some where the members have held that violation of principle of natural justice amounts to quashing of proceedings and somewhere they throw back the bowl in the coat of lower authorities. He suggested me to collect such orders from the web portals and asked me to make a note of such orders, then he assures me that CBI action would be taken against them definitely. I am collecting some orders from the net and then hand over these orders to the intelligence agencies. I asked him whether same procedure will be followed in respect of member of all tribunal he said yes
#4
Discussion / validity of notices u/s 148
Last post by satyanveshi - April 07, 2022, 10:11:37 AMThe above notification clearly says the notice u/s 148 should be issued in the faceless manner through automated allocation. But the notices were found to be issued by AOs without being followed the procedure of automated allocation. Under these circumstances whether the said notice issued by normal AOs without following the procedure of automatic allocation and without following faceless procedure are valid in law.
It is observed that incometax department is issuing notices u/s 148 without following the prescribed procedure u/s 149 especially for the period more than 3 years but less than 10 years which reads as per enclosure.
which means the AO should have in his possession the books of accounts or documents or evidence but it is observed that basing on the information flagged by risk management strategy the department started issuing notices but they don't have books of accounts of documents or evidence in their possession. Whether anybody challenged the notices on this ground.
It is observed that incometax department is issuing notices u/s 148 without following the prescribed procedure u/s 149 especially for the period more than 3 years but less than 10 years which reads as per enclosure.
which means the AO should have in his possession the books of accounts or documents or evidence but it is observed that basing on the information flagged by risk management strategy the department started issuing notices but they don't have books of accounts of documents or evidence in their possession. Whether anybody challenged the notices on this ground.
#5
Discussion / validity of notices u/s 148A
Last post by satyanveshi - April 07, 2022, 07:06:38 AMIt is observed that public are receiving large number of notices issued u/s 148A of the IT act asking clarifications on various financial transactions entered into by the assessees before the department issuing the reopening notices u/s 148. In this connection, it is observed it is observed that the new section 148A which has come into existence with effect from 01.04.2021 and this section was governed by sec.151A. Further, the new section ie section 151A is not activated till a notification is issued on 29.03.2022. Since, sec 151A is not activated till 29.03.2022 automatically the new section 148A is also not activated till 151A was activated ie. till 29.03.3022. Since the new section u/s 148A is dormant till 29.03.2022, whether the department can issue notices under a dormant section which was not activated till a notification is issued on 29.03.2022. accordingly, the notices issued u/s 148A before 29.03.3022 are valid in the eyes of law.
secondly, on 29.03.2022, a notification is issued u/s 151A which is enclosed ...
The above notification clearly says the notice u/s 148 should be issued in the faceless manner through automated allocation. But the notices were found to be issued by AOs without being followed the procedure of automated allocation. Under these circumstances whether the said notice issued by normal AOs without following the procedure of automatic allocation and without following faceless procedure are valid in law.
secondly, on 29.03.2022, a notification is issued u/s 151A which is enclosed ...
The above notification clearly says the notice u/s 148 should be issued in the faceless manner through automated allocation. But the notices were found to be issued by AOs without being followed the procedure of automated allocation. Under these circumstances whether the said notice issued by normal AOs without following the procedure of automatic allocation and without following faceless procedure are valid in law.
#6
Discussion / Re: Ajay Gandhi Judgment of Ap...
Last post by oliver07 - December 29, 2021, 03:08:08 PMThe President, ITAT shall problem orders concerning posting and switch of the contributors after approval of the Ministry indicating therein that they've been issued after approval of the equipped authority. Reproduction of all such orders shall always be advocated the Ministry. The President of India is similarly thrilled to determine that the Ministry might also problem orders of posting and transfers of Members while taking into consideration necessary
#7
Discussion / Re: Hearing of matters beyond ...
Last post by iamsteve0m - December 26, 2021, 01:01:56 AMIf you are facing sickness, you are entitled not to be automatically dismissed. ... they are unwell at least 30 minutes before they are due to start work,
#8
Discussion / Re: Bogus LTCG Reopening
Last post by rapheal21 - December 01, 2021, 10:11:10 PMAddition u/s 10(38) on alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) deleted where no further verification made by AO except solely reliance on information from investigation wing.
ITAT held that the long-term capital gain on the sale of shares of M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd. is not a bogus capital gain as the AO has solely relied on the report of the investigation/survey team and has not carried out any further verification on the basis of documents furnished by the assessee. Similarly, the position of long-term capital gain earned on the sale of shares of M/s. Gemstone Investment Ltd. of Rs.88,41,060/- is the same as the assessee has filed all the necessary evidence before the AO and AO has failed to carry out any further investigation to prove that the long term capital gain earned by the assessee is bogus and fictitious. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee succeeds on merit also.
ITAT held that the long-term capital gain on the sale of shares of M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd. is not a bogus capital gain as the AO has solely relied on the report of the investigation/survey team and has not carried out any further verification on the basis of documents furnished by the assessee. Similarly, the position of long-term capital gain earned on the sale of shares of M/s. Gemstone Investment Ltd. of Rs.88,41,060/- is the same as the assessee has filed all the necessary evidence before the AO and AO has failed to carry out any further investigation to prove that the long term capital gain earned by the assessee is bogus and fictitious. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee succeeds on merit also.
#9
Discussion / Re: A Bedi at every Important ...
Last post by kellymiller - October 18, 2021, 09:29:43 AMI had the same thought.
#10
Discussion / Re: Income tax question? How i...
Last post by etbandung - August 30, 2021, 04:25:55 PMif they have such a company structure base they will easily acknowledge by the tax service , if the person who teach stand alone than its gonna be hard for the government track the the money unless they client report of the service ,just like a solo tour guide atleast he have good english he could make easy money just by accompany the tourist every where