-
During lock down period- the AO has acted with undue haste in passing the orders under Section 201(1)(1A) of the Act.- The writ was allowed for quashing the order passed under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961- the demand notice. Immediately after the lockdown is withdrawn by the Government, a period of two weeks reckoned therefrom is granted to the petitioner to reply to the Notices to the show cause issued by the respondent.
-
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.
-
Supreme Court on 24.4.2020 held that no addition u/s 68 can be allowed when the CIT Appeal deleted the penalty on the same credit entry on the ground that the assessee establish the credentials. High Court also held that when the books of accounts rejected for GP addition purpose, but then, if those books of accounts did disclose certain other assets, which are wrongly shown to be liabilities, and for acquisition of which the assessee did not show the source, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer was not entitled to use the books of accounts for this purpose. Basir Ahmed Sisodiya Vs. ITO
-
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.
-
ITAT KOLKATA on Mar 13, 2020 quashed the reopening of assessment and allow this appeal of the assessee on the ground that the re-opening is bad in law as the Assessing Officer has not independently applied his mind to the material and recorded reasons which are vague and merely based on borrowed satisfaction.
-
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.
-
Section 147, 132 Gujarat High Court on 25 February, 2020 held that when Search and seizure of incriminating material is at third party and have not in the name of or in hand writings or signature of the assessee, also no such transaction is with third party then in the absence of any other independent material to corroborate the statement of third party no addition can be made. it-cases-205-2020
-
ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM on 26 February, 2020- Search and Seizure operations- Once the assessee has explained the way in which he derived income and also the purpose for which it is utilized, it is not necessary for the assessee being an educational society to substantiate further with the source of the income received in view of section 115BBC(2)&(3) of the Act. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions laid down in Section 271AAB(1)(a), therefore penalty at 10% is leviable (instead of 30%) in this case. As per section 115BBC, any trust or institution received anonymous donations, is not necessary to mention identity/address and other particulars in the books.
-
ITAT Banglore on 13th December, 2019 Penny Stock-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. Remanded. Ramesh Chand Kothari (Huf) vs ITO AY 2015-16
-
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