- 2020 (11) TMI 827 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Stay petition - grievance of the petitioner is that though Ext.P3 application for stay was heard on 31.10.2019, based on Ext.P4 notice dated 18.10.2019, the 2nd respondent is yet to pass orders on that application.HELD THAT:- This Court deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent to conduct a re-hearing on Ext.P3 application for stay, with notice to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, and pass orders on that application, within a further period of two weeks. The 2nd respondent shall also consider the request of the petitioner for early disposal of Ext.P2 appeal, considering the fact that he is a senior citizen aged 80 years.
- 2020 (11) TMI 826 - ITAT DELHI
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - eligibility of reasons to believe - HELD THAT:- There is no infirmity in action u/s 148 of the Act wherein, there was a requisite information and the ld AO has applied his mind and found that there is reason to believe for the reopening of the assessment as according to AIR information assessee has deposited ₹ 1049000/- in his bank account with Laxmi Vilas Bank Ltd - There is no infirmity in the reopening of the assessment. Accordingly, ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal are dismissed. Addition u/s 69 - unexplained source of cash deposit - HELD THAT:- Out of the above ₹ 2 lakhs the source of ₹ 26,000/- has been explained by the assessee whereas the balance of ₹ 174,000/- remains unexplained. In view of the above analysis, we direct the ld AO to delete the addition of ₹ 340,000/....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 825 - ITAT DELHI
Allowable business expenses OR capital expenditure - payment of forfeited amount earlier received by the assessee - HELD THAT:- The above claim of the assessee on account of repayment of forfeited amount earlier received by the assessee, taxed duly in AY 15-16, subsequently, those persons received forfeited amount from assessee, booked the real estate during the year and therefore, forfeited amount was returned by the assessee is definitely an expenditure which springs from the business of the assessee of the real estate. The above expenditure has been incurred by the assessee wholly and exclusively for the purpose of booking of a real estate, cannot be held to be a capital expenditure. Same forfeited amount received from the same person has already been taxed for AY 2015-16, when the same is returned during the current year on booking of....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 824 - ITAT DELHI
Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme - assessee has opted to settle the dispute relating to the tax arrears for the assessment year under consideration- HELD THAT:- We have seen the letter dated 17.11.2020 along with Form 1 and 2 filed with income tax department. Considering the aforesaid situation, the present appeal is dismissed. However, this dismissal of appeal is subject to a caveat that in case the dispute relating to tax arrears for the present assessment year is not ultimately resolved in terms of the aforesaid Scheme, the assessee shall be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of the appeal and the Tribunal shall consider such application as per law. The Revenue has no objection with regard to the aforesaid caveat. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
- 2020 (11) TMI 823 - ITAT DELHI
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - No proper recording of satisfaction by Principal CIT - eligibility of reasons to believe - HELD THAT:- It is difficult to make out as to what were the “reasons for belief that income has escaped assessment” with the AO on the basis of which Principal CIT has accorded sanction by merely writing “I am satisfied.” From the approval recorded and words used that "Yes. I am satisfied.", it is proved on record that the sanction is accorded in mechanical manner and Pr.CIT has not applied independent mind while according sanction as there is not an iota of material on record as to what documents he had perused and what were the reasons for his being satisfied to accord the sanction to initiate the reopening of assessment u/ss 147/148 of the Act. Even the AO has not applied his jud....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 822 - ITAT INDORE
Revision u/s 263 - transaction of cash deposit in the saving bank account by the respective assessee(s) - transaction arising out of family partition - CIT while initiating proceedings u/s 263 of the Act mentioned that “ no details and documents are found on record which could establish that the dates on which the amount was received by the assessee from his father and also the Ld. A.O did not examined the assessee on oath in connection with the veracity of the transaction” - HELD THAT:- A.O vide his notice dated 3.10.2016 issued u/s 143(2) of the Act enclosed a Annexure and through point No.13, the assessee was required to explain the source of cash deposit in his saving bank account. Along with this reply the assessee enclosed copy of bank pass book, copy of agreement of sale of agriculture land, copy of memorandum of family....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 821 - ITAT INDORE
Levying late fees u/s 234E - Late filing of TDS returns / statement - statement processed u/s 200A - delay in filing return for the period before 01.06.2015 - HELD THAT:- As decided in case of Executive Engineer & others [2019 (7) TMI 1678 - ITAT INDORE] Assessee is eligible for relief for deletion of fee levied u/s 234E of the Act as the returns are processed before 1.6.2015. - Appeal of assessee allowed.
- 2020 (11) TMI 820 - ITAT MUMBAI
Revision u/s 263 - addition on account of suppression of GP on accommodation entries - AO T axing only profit by estimating GP on alleged bogus purchase - Reopening of assessment on the basis of information received by Investigation Wing after search on Bhanwarlal Jain group - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. [2019 (2) TMI 1632 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Paramshakti Distributors Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (7) TMI 838 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that in case of bogus purchases, purchases cannot be rejected without distrusting the sales in case of a trader. The addition can be restricted to the extent of GP rate on such purchases to bring it at par with genuine purchases. In other words, it is only the profit element embedded in the bogus purchase bills that is to be brought to tax and t....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 819 - ITAT BANGALORE
Denial of claim of deduction u/s 10AA on transfer pricing adjustment made by the assessee voluntarily - HELD THAT:- We notice that an identical issue has been examined by the Bengaluru bench of Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in assessment year 2010-11 [2020 (5) TMI 548 - ITAT BANGALORE] and it has been decided in favour of the assessee by following the decision rendered by the Pune Bench of Tribunal in the case of Apoorva Systems Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (3) TMI 1031 - ITAT PUNE] - Decided against revenue.
- 2020 (11) TMI 818 - ITAT BANGALORE
Grant of recognition u/s. 80G rejected - assessee trust obtained registration under section 12AA - HELD THAT:- Impugned order of ld. CIT(E) is a non-speaking order. As rightly contended by the ld. counsel for the assessee, the generation of surplus and the fact that majority of receipts are by way of fees collection cannot be a ground to refuse recognition u/s. 80G - The assessee is admittedly existing for a charitable purpose of providing education. As rightly contended by the ld. DR, the impugned order is a non-speaking order and therefore it would be in the fitness of things to set aside the order of CIT(E) and remand back to him the issue of grant of recognition u/s. 80G of the Act to the assessee for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) will afford opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding the issue. Appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.
- 2020 (11) TMI 817 - ITAT MUMBAI
Income from other sources u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) - difference between the market value and purchase consideration on the date of registration of sale - HELD THAT:- In the instant case the Proviso to sub clause (b) of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act gets attracted and the Stamp Duty value as on the date of booking the flat wherein the consideration was mutually agreed between the parties was fixed shall be taken for the purpose of sub clause (b). The assessee has also filed a report from the registered valuer, according to which the stamp duty value of the flat in August, 2012 has been determined at ₹ 98,68,000/. We find merit in the contentions raised by the assessee.The provision of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act does not envisage transfer of ownership for determination of stamp duty value. The determination of stamp duty value hing....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 816 - ITAT DELHI
Addition u/s 68 - unverified/non-existent /bogus sundry creditors in respect of six creditors on the ground that the assessee could not substantiate the identity and credit worthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transaction - HELD THAT:- Payments have been made by the assessee to the creditors in subsequent years and there is nothing on record to show that such payments made to the above parties have come back to the assessee in some form or the other. Books of account of the assessee has not been rejected and the addition u/s 68 of the Act has been made in respect of six creditors from whom the assessee has purchased goods, but, no payments have been made to those parties during the impugned assessment year and the assessee was unable to produce the above six parties before the AO during remand proceedings although three ....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 815 - ITAT KOLKATA
Addition under the head Railways Punitive charges - Whether compensatory in nature and allowable u/s 37 - observation of the A.O that punitive charges for overloading was penal in nature - HELD THAT:- Since the identical issue has been decided by the Coordinate bench in favour of the assessee by allowing the claim of damages in own case [2018 (10) TMI 672 - ITAT KOLKATA], respectfully relying upon the same we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld CIT(A) so as to warrant interference. Hence in the absence of any merit found in the appeal preferred by the revenue, the same is hereby dismissed. Addition u/s 14A r.w.r 8D - HELD THAT:- As in own case [2018 (10) TMI 672 - ITAT KOLKATA] not all investments become the subject-matter of consideration when computing disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D. The disallowance under ....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 814 - ITAT KOLKATA
Reopening of assessment - legality of issuance of notice u/s. 148 - Period of limitation - CIT(A) was of the opinion that issuance / serving of notice for reopening u/s 148 of the Act and subsequent framing of re-assessment order was not as per Section 149 and 153 - Time limit prescribed for completion of assessment / re-assessment / re-computation after re-opening - HELD THAT:- in the present case, we note that the limitation period for issuing notice of reopening u/s. 148 of the Act as prescribed in Section149 of the Act gives the outer limit of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year which in this case for AY 2009-10 is admittedly on 31.03.2016. So by issuing notice even though on the last day as prescribed by Section 149 of the Act, the AO gets the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment of the assessee for AY 2009-10. Fu....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 813 - ITAT JAIPUR
Revision u/s 263 - Bogus LTCG - Suspicious sale transaction in shares and exempt long term capital gains shown in return (Penny Stock Tab in ITS) - HELD THAT:- We find that the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Shri Narayan Tatu Rane [2016 (5) TMI 1162 - ITAT MUMBAI], M/s. Arun Kumar Garg, HUF, [2019 (4) TMI 400 - ITAT DELHI] have ruled that the Pr. CIT can not pass the order u/s 263 of the Act on the ground that thorough enquiry should have been made by the Assessing Officer. See DG HOUSING PROJECTS LTD [2012 (3) TMI 227 - DELHI HIGH COURT] In the present case AO had given a specific notice regarding the disputed transactions and the assesseee also gave specific reply to the show cause notice issued by the assessing officer. Therefore, it is not a case where the assessing officer has not made any enquiry regarding ....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 812 - ITAT JAIPUR
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the department could reopen the case? - HELD THAT:- The “reasons to believe” would mean “cause or justification” - at the stage of initiating the proceedings for reopening of assessment by issuing notice, the only question which should bear in mind is as to whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed a requisite believe and in our view, the A.O. was well within his right to reopen the assessment on the basis of information received from I&CI Wing of the department that the assessee had purchased property in the year under consideration and during the course of enquiries made by I&CI Wing of the department, the assessee could not explain the source of investment. In view ....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 811 - ITAT BANGALORE
Procedure prescribed u/s 144C - validity of draft assessment order where AO did not attach the notice of demand - Whether the whole assessment proceedings is liable to be quashed as illegal - whether the action of the AO in issuing Notice of Demand along with the draft assessment order would vitiate the assessment proceedings - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, there is no dispute that the assessing officer has consciously passed the draft assessment order by correctly mentioning that the same is passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Act. The assessee has also understood the same as draft assessment order and accordingly filed its objections before Ld DRP. The Ld DRP has also passed its directions in pursuance of objections filed by the assessee. In our view, the question of applicability of sec.292B of the Act does not require consideration....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 810 - ITAT MUMBAI
Interest disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) - assessee did not file any fund flow statements in support of the submissions that own funds were used to make the investments in certain premises, against which the disallowance has been computed by lower authorities - HELD THAT:- The perusal of assessee’s financial statements would show that the assessee has own funds in the shape of share capital & reserves aggregating to ₹ 225.28 Crores at year end as against opening funds of ₹ 153.15 Crores. Besides the above funds, the assessee has interest free unsecured loans of ₹ 58.72 Crores at its disposal at year end. As against this, the capital advances at year end stood at ₹ 20.23 Crores as against opening balance of ₹ 19.83 Crores which would show that there was only a marginal increase of ₹ 40 Lacs during ....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 809 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets i.e. non-compete fees - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2018 (8) TMI 1999 - ITAT MUMBAI] assessee acquired 78% of the interest in the partnership firm, we are of the firm view that any payment which is made for not competing with the firm for the period of five years is evidently falls within the ambit of non compete fee as the payment was made to protect the business interest of the assessee as the assessee’s cost of investment in the said firm was ₹ 91.51 crores which was made by way of capital contribution to the tune of ₹ 3.9 crores and ₹ 87.61 for acquiring the rights in the said partnership. Thus finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is fallacious and wrong and can not be sustained. In this case, the assessee has made payment of non compete fee and rightly treated and....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 808 - ITAT MUMBAI
Profit chargeable to tax under section 41 - case was selected for scrutiny under CASS - Reading of the comments of the auditor at clause no. 20 of form no.3CD, being tax audit report, with regards to computation of miscellaneous income - HELD THAT:- We notice from the record that the tax auditor has disclosed certain details of information in Clause 20 of tax audit report, but he did not elaborate what those information are.When analyzing those information, it says other deduction (income) and other information rebates and settlement. When we deduct the income and settlement amount, the difference which matches with the Miscellenous income declared by the assessee in its financial statement. When the assessee tries to explain the tax authorities they did not believe and also not verified the same by calling for explanation from the tax au....... + More
