-
ITAT DELHI “SMC” BENCH Pronouncement the order on 27.5.2022 in the case of Bharat Bhushan Jain Vs. ITO.
-
Question : Is Penalty under Section 271E is permissible in the absence of regular assessment framed against the assessee by the Revenue? ITAT – Ahmedabad in the case of Vijayaben G Zalavadia, … vs The Jt. Cit, Gandhinagar on 11 May, 2022. Answer: Penalty Quashed.
-
Search and Seizure- No seizure of jewellery when it is stock of the assessee as the protection is provided in proviso appearing after sub clause – (iii) to sub Section (1) of Section 132 for stock. Further Satisfaction note clearly disclosed that formulation of “reason to believe” was post search and seizure. Action of search and seizure is bad in law. Saddle the Deptt. with costs at Rs.50,000/-. KHEM CHAND MUKIM Vs.Principal Director of Income Tax. Jan 9, 2020 IT-CASES-214-2020
-
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
-
Kindly note Supreme Court in Vodafone Idea on 29th April 2020 held that there is assessment year wise regime in processing of refund u/s 143(1)
-
Madras High Court decision on 5 March, 2020 on stay of demand-consequences of not depositing of 20% of total demand within 30 days alongwith stay application- CBDT’s instruction on stay of demand