-
ITAT HYDERABAD on 29th April 2020 held that the sale of the property by the Vendee cum AGPA-holder cannot be considered as sale of property by the assessee when the Vendee has paid the entire sale consideration and has taken possession of the property as the Vendee becomes the owner of the property u/s.53A of the TP Act and u/s.2(47) it is a transfer of the property. Further it is worth noting that except being described as the Vendor, the assessee is neither a signatory to the subsequent Sale Deed nor is he the recipient of any of the sale consideration. In SAMA OM REDDY vs. ITO
-
ITAT- Amritsar on 18 February, 2020-hold that In the light of ratio laid down by the Hon`ble Supreme Court citation 418 ITR 662 (S.C.) it is the duty of the assessee to keep upto date the address in data base of the IT Department by submitting timely prescribed application.
-
ITAT Delhi on 31st jan; 2019 held that CIT(A) could not enhance income of assessee on altogether ‘new Source’. before submitting your written submission kindly read carefully the notes and read case laws mentioned.
-
What are the consequences when the notice u/s 143(2) served without examining the return filed in compliance of notice.? The answer is given by ITAT DELHI on 20 February, 2020 in the case of Ananya Portfolio (P) Ltd. v. ITO- IT-CASES-203-2020. Assessment quashed.
-
ITAT AHMEDABAD on Mar 11, 2020 held that 148 Notice issed in the name of dead person. One legal representative participated in proceedings. Raised objection 1st time in appeal. It is procedural mistake rectificable 292B to frame assessment in the name of all legal heirs as per the provisions of law after issue of notice u/s 148 to all legal representatives.
-
Landmark decision by Supreme Court during Lock down period in the case of NDTV on 3rd April 2020. Appeal allow by holding that the notice u/s 148 is valid when the revenue discovered fresh tangible material. However no addition can be made when the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all material facts during assessment proceedings 143(3). The assessee must be put to notice of all the provisions on which the revenue relies upon. If the notice does not mention of second proviso of section 147 the court will not allow to treat as a notice invoking provisions of the second proviso of Section 147 of the Act.
-
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
-
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.
-
11 मार्च 2020 अहमदाबाद ट्रिब्यूनल ने फेसला दिया कि अगर कर निर्धारण अधिकारी धारा 148 का नोटिस मृत व्यक्ति के नाम से दिया है और उसके उत्तराधिकारी नोटिस का जवाब देते हैं और उस समय कोई ऑब्जेक्शन नहीं उठाते हैं और कर निर्धारण अधिकारी उत्तराधिकारी के नाम से एसेसमेंट ऑर्डर करते हैं तो वह नोटिस 148 वैलिड रहेगा लेकिन चूंकि एसेसमेंट ऑर्डर केवल एक उत्तराधिकारी के खिलाफ है इस कारण सेट एसाइड किया गया की यह आर्डर सभी उत्तराधिकारी के खिलाफ किया जावे।
-
Section 68, 133(6), 143(1), 147, 153C किसी अन्य पार्टी के यहां आयकर छापा पड़ने पर एसएससी के इनक्रिमिनेटिंग मटेरियल मिलने पर धारा 153C की प्रोसीडिंग्स होगी। अगर धारा 147 148 की प्रोसिडिंग की जाती है तो वह नोटिस एवं प्रोसीडिंग्स इल्लीगल है तथा सारी प्रोसिडिंग रद्द करने योग्य है। NAWAL OILS AND CONTAINERS P. LTD. vs. ITO