Latest Posts

ITAT CHENNAI held on Mar 13, 2020 Disallowance of interest is valid when out of borrowed ‎funds the assessee advanced interest free loan to subsidiary concern without commercial ‎expediency. ‎

ITAT CHENNAI held on Mar 13, 2020 Disallowance of interest is valid when out of borrowed funds the assessee advanced interest free loan to subsidiary concern without establishing commercial expediency. RAJKHAM BUILDERS PVT LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER IN THE…
Read more

AY 2015-16, CHENNAI ITAT, In favour of Revenue

Unless the bad debt is written off by debiting to the P&L account and the debtors’ account should be credited, the condition as contemplated u/s. 36(1)(vii) is not satisfied. judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. (supra) relied on by the assessee’s Counsel applies mainly to Banking companies Regarding allowability of Provision for bad debts. No infirmity was found in exercising power u/s 263 by CIT

Unless the bad debt is written off by debiting to the P&L account and the debtors’ account should be credited, the condition as contemplated u/s. 36(1)(vii) is not satisfied. judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank…
Read more

143(3), 263-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue, 36(1)(vii), AY 2014-15, In favour of Revenue, ITAT COCHIN ‎

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

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…
Read more

271(1)(c), AY 2009-10, In Favour of Assessee, ITAT Mumbai

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

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 271AAC…
Read more

271(1)(c), 271AAC, AY 2014-15, Chandigarh ITAT, In Favour of Assessee

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.‎

A very decision by Supreme Court during Loc down period as it was 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…
Read more

147, 147 First Proviso for extended period of Limitation of 6 Years, 147 Second proviso-Foreign income or Foreign Assets, 148

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.

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…
Read more

Cases Income tax

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).

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). VISAKHAPATNAM METROPOLITAN…
Read more

12AA, 12AA(3), Exemption, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH

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. ‎

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. vs. BHAVYA MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD. & ORS. IN THE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’ P.M. JAGTAP, VP & S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM. ITA No. 2148/Kol/2017, IT(SS)A No. 139/Kol/2017 (C.O. No. 110/Kol/2018, 09/Kol/2017) Mar 18,…
Read more

143(3), 153A, AY 2011-12, In Favour of Assessee, incriminating material, Kolkata tribunal, Satisfaction, Search and seizure

Calcutta High Court on 4th march, 2020 publication date 24th March, 2020 held that since the provisional Attachment u/s 83 of GST Act is ‎reprehensible and absolutely contrary to law the respondent authorities are directed ‎to pay costs of Rs. 5 lakhs to each of the three petitioners. ‎

Calcutta High Court held that since the provisional Attachment u/s 83 of GST Act is reprehensible and absolutely contrary to law the respondent authorities are directed to pay costs of Rs. 5 lakhs to each of the three petitioners. The…
Read more

‎83, Article 19(1)

#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.

#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…
Read more

10(38), AY 2015-16, CHENNAI ITAT