Cases Income tax

(→ for subcategory see right ) (for subcategory scroll Below)

ITAT BOMBAY on 13 March, 2020 hold that it is settled position of law that penalty u/s271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the additions as made by the AO was a pure estimate and nothing concrete as to bogus purchases were brought on records by the AO by making any further enquiries or investigation though the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the alleged bogus purchases from the Hawala. ITO vs. PREMKUMAR SHEHGAL
No Penalty 271(1)(c) ITAT Chandigarh held that since the income has already been declared in the valid ‎revised return (though after service of Summons issued by ADIT (inv.)) filed within the ‎limitation period prescribed for filing the same therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in ‎respect of the aforesaid income declared is not leviable and the same is accordingly ‎ordered to be deleted. Penalty u/s 271AAC can be levied only when there is an addition ‎or disallowance and which it is deemed that he has evaded the payment of tax for ‎computing the penalty so leviable. ‎ Smt. Parkash Kaur, Ludhiana vs ACIT
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.‎
ITAT COCHIN on Mar 13, 2020 held that if the assessee had sufficient own capital then he can utilize that fund for non business purposes and no disallowance out of interest on borrowed funds can be made with allegation of diversion of funds. ACIT Vs. vs. ABDUL REHMAN KUNJU & ANR.
On 20.3.2020 ITAT VISHAKAPATNAM hold that when the sale proceeds of joint venture are utilized for advancement of the objects without diversion, it does not violate the objects of the assessee. Hence it does not make the assessee disentitle for registration u/s 12AA(3).
ITAT KOLKATA on Mar 18, 2020 held that the assessment made u/s 153A/143(3) of the ‎Act is invalid in the absence of any incriminating material found during course of search ‎hence the addition made by AO in assessment completed was beyond scope. ‎
#Penny_Stock ITAT CHENNAI on Mar 4, 2020 hold that the A O shall require the assessee; to establish who, with whom, how and in what circumstances the impugned transactions were carried out etc., to prove that the impugned transactions are actual, genuine etc. The assessee shall comply with the A.O’s requirements as per law. The Assessing Officer shall also bring on record the role of the assessee in promoting the company and relationship of the assessee with other promoters, role of the assessee in inflating the price of shares, etc. as had been held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Aravind Nandial Khatri Vs. I.T.O referred to supra.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA on Mar 19, 2020 held that Section 143(1-A) can only be invoked when the revenue discharged the burden of proving that the assessee has attempted to evade tax which may be discharged by the Revenue by establishing facts and circumstances from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the assessee has, in fact, attempted to evade tax lawfully payable by it. Hence the Ld. AO cannot mechanically apply the provisions of Section 143(1-A) after issuing intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
ITAT INDORE held on Mar 19, 2020 fee u/s 234E cannot be levied in the statement processed u/s 200A up to 31.05.2015.
ITAT DELHI held on Mar 19, 2020 that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. M/S GIRI BUILDWELL PVT LTD. vs. ITO