Monthly Archive: May 2020

Decision SUPREME COURT OF INDIA on MAY 13, 2020 on the issue when original ‎evidence is not available.‎ JAGMAIL SINGH & ANR. V KARAMJIT SINGH & ORS.

Decision SUPREME COURT OF INDIA on MAY 13, 2020 on the issue when original evidence is not available. It is trite that under the Evidence Act, 1872 facts have to be established by primary evidence and secondary evidence is…
Read more

65, 66, In Favour of Assessee, Indian Evidence Act 1872, Supreme Court

Economic Package on 13.5.2020 by Finance Minister Nirmala ‎Sitharaman

Economic Package on 13.5.2020 by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman 3 lakh crore Collateral-free Automatic Loan, Rs 20,000 crore loan for stressed MSMEs, Rs 50,000 crore ‘fund of funds’ to get listed on markets for MSMEs, definition of MSMEs altered Global Tenders to…
Read more

Articles, Economic packages

Section 54 BANGALORE ITAT Decision on 8.5.2020: The deduction u/s 54 of the Act ‎should not be denied merely because the name of assessee’s husband is mentioned in the ‎purchase document, when the entire purchase consideration has flown from the assessee. ‎Smt. Subbalakshmi Kurada Vs ACIT AY 2016-17‎

Conclusion Section 54 BANGALORE ITAT Decision on 8.5.2020: The deduction u/s 54 of the Act should not be denied merely because the name of assessee’s husband is mentioned in the purchase document, when the entire purchase consideration has flown from…
Read more

54, 54F, AY 2016-17, Bangalore Tribunal, In Favour of Assessee

Section 69A, 69B, 148, 254 CHANDULAL AMRUTLAL SHAH (HUF) & ORS. vs. ITO ‎May 4, 2020 ITAT SURAT AY 2000-01 & 2004-05. Supreme Court in the case of MCorp ‎Global (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 309 ITR 434 (SC) held that It is well-settled that the Tribunal ‎is not authorized to take back the benefit granted to the assessee by the Assessing Officer. It ‎has no power to enhance the assessment. In view of the statutory provisions. AO cannot ‎enhanced the income originally assessed under section 143 (3) in set-aside proceeding in ‎consequence of direction of the tribunal.‎

Section 69A, 69B, 148, 254 CHANDULAL AMRUTLAL SHAH (HUF) & ORS. vs. ITO May 4, 2020 ITAT SURAT AY 2000-01 & 2004-05. Supreme Court in the case of MCorp Global (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 309 ITR 434 (SC) held…
Read more

148, 254, 69A-Unexplained money, 69B, AY 2000-01, AY 2004-05, In favour of Assessee (Partly), ITAT Surat

Section 147, 148 ANAND DEVELOPERS vs. ACIT HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY GOA ‎BENCH ‎1 Feb, 2020 Notice u/s 147 and order u/s 148 is quashed and set aside when ‎a notice seeking to reopen assessment is beyond normal period of 4 years, in a case where ‎the assessment has been made under Section 143(3) and the revenue failed to establish ‎the precondition even prima facie that there was failure on the part of the assessee to ‎disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for that assessment ‎year.‎

Conclusion Section 147, 148 ANAND DEVELOPERS vs. ACIT HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY GOA BENCH 1 Feb, 2020 Notice u/s 147 and order u/s 148 is quashed and set aside when a notice seeking to reopen assessment is beyond normal period…
Read more

147, 148, HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY GOA BENCH, In Favour of Assessee

Section 68- AY 2011-12- ITAT SURAT- May 4, 2020‎ When the assessee furnishes names and addresses of the alleged creditors and the GIR ‎Numbers, the burden shifts to the Department to establish the revenue’s case and in ‎order to sustain the addition the revenue has to pursue the enquiry and to establish the ‎lack of creditworthiness and mere non-compliance of summons issued by the Assessing ‎Officer under section 131 by the alleged creditors will not be sufficient to draw an ‎adverse inference against the assessee.‎ DCIT vs. KEJRIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.‎

Section 68- AY 2011-12- ITAT SURAT- May 4, 2020 When the assessee furnishes names and addresses of the alleged creditors and the GIR Numbers, the burden shifts to the Department to establish the revenue’s case and in order to sustain…
Read more

68, AY 2011-12, In Favour of Assessee, ITAT Surat

Section 32, 37, 36(1)(iii), 37(1), 131, 133A, 56, 147‎ AY 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15‎ After going through the various terms of the deed if it is loan/finance arrangement ‎between the parties then the assessee is entitled only to claim interest as expenditure u/s ‎‎36 (1) (iii) and depreciation and is not entitled to claim the principal component of ‎alleged lease rent paid as ‘revenue expenditure’ u/s 37(1). FASTWAY TRANSMISSION ‎‎(P) LTD. vs. ACIT ITAT CHANDIGARH May 6, 2020‎

Section 32, 37, 36(1)(iii), 37(1), 131, 133A, 56, 147 AY 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 WHEN LOAN / FINANCE ARRANGEMENT IN THE GUISE OF A LEASE AGREEMENT The moot question is that whether the assessee is the owner of the equipment or…
Read more

131(1), 133A, 147, 36(1)(iii), 37, 37(1), 56, AY 2012-13, AY 2013-14, AY 2014-15, Chandigarh ITAT, In favour of Revenue, Section 32

The AO is not hand writing expert to distinguish the signature of the karigar as appearing in ‎the salary register and this cannot be solitary ground to reject the books of accounts. No GP ‎addition is sustained when no defects have been pointed out by the AO in the the relevant ‎records produced by the assessee in form of export bills, purchased bills and cash books etc. ‎along with books of accounts and also submit the reason of fall in GP.‎

The AO is not hand writing expert to distinguish the signature of the karigar as appearing in the salary register and this cannot be solitary ground to reject the books of accounts. No GP addition is sustained when no defects…
Read more

145(3), 250(6), 43(5), 45(3), In Favour of Assessee, In favour of Assessee (Partly), ITAT Surat

Section 148-ITAT, PUNE BENCH-11 September, 2019 held that Reassessment—Validity—only on the basis of the some reasons to believe about the escapement of income. Existence of reasons for escapement of income are sine qua non to embark upon the assessment or reassessment under section 147 of the Act. Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani v. ACIT. AY 2009-10

Section 148-ITAT, PUNE BENCH-11 September, 2019 held that Reassessment—Validity—only on the basis of the some reasons to believe about the escapement of income. Existence of reasons for escapement of income are sine qua non to embark upon the assessment or…
Read more

143(1), 143(1)(a), 143(2), 143(3), 147, 148, AY 2009-10, In Favour of Assessee, Pune Tribunal

Gujarat High Court on 11 February, 2020 held that if Employees contribution to ‎PF account as well as ESI contribution deposited timely as per section 36(1)(va) ‎then only the deduction is allowable. Kindly note that law as propounded by case ‎laws is different in different States. Kindly further note that this is relating to ‎Employee contribution not employer contribution. PCIT vs M/S Suzlon Energy ‎Ltd.‎

Two different judgements are If deposited timely as per section 36(1)(va) then only the deduction is allowable. Even a delay of 1 day in depositing it may cause the entire amount in default to be disallowed once for…
Read more

2(24)(x), 36(1)(va), 43B, AY 2012-13, Gujrat High Court, In Favour of Assessee