Author Archive: admin

ITAT LUCKNOW ने Mar 19, 2020 को फेसला दिया कि रेवेन्यू रिकॉर्ड में दर्ज खेती की जमीन पर लगाए चावल प्लांट सहित बेचने पर केवल प्लांट और प्लांट के लिए ली गई जमीन पर केपिटल गेन टैक्स लगेगा बाकी खेती की जमीन अगर खेती की जमीन धारा 2(14) में आती है तो कोई टैक्स नहीं लगेगा।

रेवेन्यू रिकॉर्ड में दर्ज खेती की जमीन पर लगाए चावल प्लांट सहित बेचने पर केवल प्लांट और प्लांट के लिए ली गई जमीन पर केपिटल गेन टैक्स लगेगा बाकी खेती की जमीन अगर खेती की जमीन धारा 2(14) में आती…
Read more

2(14), AY 2011-12, LUCKNOW ITAT

BOMBAY HIGH COURT on 14 February, 2020 hold that when an order has been passed without considering the reply and on the ground that no reply is filed, the impugned order will have to be set aside and the proceedings will have to be restored to the stage of show cause notice.

BOMBAY HIGH COURT on 14 February, 2020 hold that when an order has been passed without considering the reply and on the ground that no reply is filed, the impugned order will have to be set aside and the proceedings…
Read more

Bobmay High Court, GST

ITAT – Bangalore on 13 December, 2019 held that Penny Stock-When proved that share transactions are tailor made then the submission that transactions are through recognised stock exchange, through banking channels or not allowed cross examination are not acceptable. The claim is required to be proven to be illegitimate by providing all relevant documents to establish sound financial of alledged companies and that fluctuation in price was market driven and to establish genuineness of sale and purchase of alledged scripts

ITAT – Bangalore on 13 December, 2019 held that Penny Stock-When proved that share transactions are tailor made then the submission that transactions are through recognised stock exchange, through banking channels or not allowed cross examination are not acceptable. The…
Read more

Bangalore Tribunal, Penny stock

ITAT Mumbai on 16th March 2020 held that In case of bogus bill found where actual purchases were made by cash, method of peak credit as adopted by AO would not be a suitable method rather an adhoc estimated addition would meet cause of justice

MANUBHAI GEMS PRIVATE LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITAT BOMBAY BENCH ‘E’ AMARJIT SINGH, JM & MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM. ITA No. 7301/Mum/2019 Mar 16, 2020 Section 69C, 143(1) AY 2010-11 Decision in favour of: Assessee Cases Relied: CIT…
Read more

143(1), 69C, AY 2010-11, In Favour of Assessee, ITAT Mumbai

ITAT Mumbai on 16th March 2020 held that to make addition in Section 69C it is postulated that source of expenditure incurred not found satisfactory by Ld. AO. When purchases were reversed by the assessee in subsequent years and the transactions of purchases as well as sales were stated to be mere paper entries. The such stock purchased was reflected in closing stock. Thus it is circular transactions and are mere paper entries and no addition can be made u/s 69C.

MANUBHAI GEMS PRIVATE LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITAT BOMBAY BENCH ‘E’ AMARJIT SINGH, JM & MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM. ITA No. 7301/Mum/2019 Mar 16, 2020 Section 69C, 143(1) AY 2010-11 Decision in favour of: Assessee Cases Relied: CIT…
Read more

143(1), 69C, AY 2010-11, ITAT Mumbai

ITAT Mumbai on 16th March 2020 held that the Additions merely on the basis of statements made during survey proceedings u/s 133A would not hold much evidentiary value unless the same were backed up by some cogent corroborative material.

ITAT Mumbai on 16th March 2020 held that the Retraction of a statement of a particular person by another person statement is bad and disregarded for all purposes. ITAT Mumbai on 16th March 2020 held that the Additions merely on the…
Read more

69C, AY 2010-11, ITAT Mumbai

ITAT Mumbai on 16th March 2020 held that the Retraction of a statement of a particular person by another person statement is bad and disregarded for all purposes.

Retraction of a statement of a particular person by another person statement is bad and disregarded for all purposes. Additions merely on the basis of statements made during survey proceedings u/s 133A would not hold much evidentiary value unless the same…
Read more

143(1), 69C, AY 2010-11, ITAT Mumbai

ITAT COCHIN held on Mar 13, 2020 that if Primary agricultural credit society give Loan for ‎agricultural purpose then the assessee’s activities are in compliance with the activities of ‎primary agricultural credit society and therefore claim of deduction u/s 80P(2) of the I.T. Act ‎can not be denied.‎

ITAT COCHIN held on Mar 13, 2020 that if Primary agricultural credit society give Loan for agricultural purpose then the assessee’s activities are in compliance with the activities of primary agricultural credit society and therefore claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)…
Read more

80P, 80P(2), 80P(4), AY 2013-14, AY 2014-15, AY 2015-16, ITAT COCHIN ‎

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS on Mar 3, 2020 hold that there is no capital gain on ‎Refundable Security Deposit received through development agreement when owner ‎continues to be owner throughout agreement, and has at no stage purported to transfer ‎rights akin to ownership to developer—At highest, possession alone is given under ‎agreement, and that too for a specific purpose, purpose being to develop property, as ‎envisaged by all parties

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS on Mar 3, 2020 hold that there is no capital gain on Refundable Security Deposit received through development agreement when owner continues to be owner throughout agreement, and has at no stage purported to transfer rights…
Read more

142(1), 143(2), 147, 148, AY 2007-08, madras High Court

ITAT Bangalore on Mar 13, 2020 hold that For reopening an assessment, the Assessing ‎Officer cannot consider the information which is already on record and it should be from ‎outside sources.

ITAT Bangalore on Mar 13, 2020 hold that For reopening an assessment, the Assessing Officer cannot consider the information which is already on record and it should be from outside sources AKSHAYA SOUHARDA CREDIT COOPERATVIE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER…
Read more

147, 148, 80P(2)(a)(i), Bangalore Tribunal