Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2022 2022 (3) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 241 to 260 of 1601 Records

• 2022 (3) TMI 1361 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Validity of Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - assessee is one of the beneficiaries of bogus accommodation entries - ACIT has expressed the view that the assessee has introduced her own undisclosed income in her books of account by way of accommodation entries by showing artificial transactions to make the same valid transactions, though it is simply a planning to introduce unexplained money into books of account - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the reasons recorded by the assessing officer shows that after considering the report of the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.), AO has conducted an investigation and has gone through the income tax return and other related documents of the assessee and has observed that the assessee is a beneficiary of receiving bogus accommodation entries and it is only thereafter that he has recorded that he has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment in respect of the assessee. When pursuant to an information received from the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit-3 (3), Kolkata, the assessing officer has conducted an investigation, has gone through the income tax return and other related documents of the assessee and has observed that the assessee is a beneficiary of receiving bogus accommodation entries and he has found a reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment in respect of the assessee, we do not find any force in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the assessing officer has acted on a report of the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit-3 (3), Kolkata and he has not recorded his own reasons to believe, and thus the same is rejected.

  When we examine the facts of the present case keeping into view the scope of power of judicial review while scrutinizing a notice issued under Section 148 of the Act as explained in Raymond woolen Mills Ltd. [1997 (12) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] and Phool Chand Bajarang Lal [1993 (7) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT], we find that the notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued by the assessing officer after conducting an investigation and going through the income tax return and other related documents of the assessee and after giving reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment in respect of the assessee. We are satisfied that there is prima facie material available on record before the assessing officer for issuing a notice for reassessment and the notice under Section 148 - order passed by the Assessing Officer rejecting the petitioner’s objections against issuance of the notice, does not suffer from any such illegality as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its Writ Jurisdiction, - Decided against assessee.

  ---

• 2022 (3) TMI 1360 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Deduction u/s 80-IC - assessee was not entitled to claim any benefit under Section 80-IC as Unit-III was not a new Unit and it was re-construction of an existing Unit-II - Appellate Authority held that the Assessing Officer had rightly held that the operation of Unit-III was nothing but an extension of operation of Unit-II - HELD THAT:- Assessing Officer was influenced by the fact that since Unit-III was being run by the assessee in its registered office, therefore, activities done in Unit-III were identical in nature to those done by Unit-II. The Assessing Officer had failed to appreciate that the building, where Unit-III had been started, had in fact been given on rent, whereas, Unit-II was being run in a separate building which was at a distance of about 7 kilometers. The building where the registered office was started in the assessment year 2009-10, was got vacated and thereafter Unit-III was started in the said premises in assessment year 2010-11. It was not a case where plant and machinery of Unit-II had been used for Unit-III. The business of the company had grown and with a view to expand its business, the company started a new Unit by making investment as shown in the Chart reproduced abve. New employees were recruited by the Assessee for Unit-III. Separate account books were maintained by Assessee qua Unit-II & Unit-III.

  Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the assessee was entitled to claim benefit under Section 80-IC of the Act by treating Unit-III of the assessee-company as a separate and distinct Unit - findings recorded by the Tribunal can neither be said to be perverse or result of misreading of evidence and material on record. The substantial question of law decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2022 (3) TMI 1359 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  GP estimation - Closing stock estimation - assessee had tried to furnish month wise closing stock and had failed to produce/justify/explain/ substantiate the same during the period of assessment - HELD THAT:- AO had computed month wise and quarter wise trading account for enhancing the gross profit. AO had failed to consider the genuine purchases and sales made by the assessee, which had been duly entered in the books of account. The nature of business carried by the assessee was also not considered by the AO. The assessee was receiving goods throughout the year from different warehouses, through bills or challans. Lump-sum payments were made to the different suppliers throughout the year.

  All the records, i.e., books of account, sales and purchase vouchers had been fully produced by the assessee - Assessing Officer had, however, prepared month wise trading account and had found negative stock in the books of account of the assessee. Although, the Assessing Officer had not found any unrecorded purchases, but had, in his own way, prepared the trading account for enhancing the gross profit. No sales were found outside the books of account. AO could have made the assessment as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the subsequent assessment years, the AO had passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act in respect of the same business activities of the assessee, which gave rise to net profit of 2.53% and 2.99%.

  The learned Tribunal had, thus, rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the department.

  ---

• 2022 (3) TMI 1358 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Search and seizure proceedings - Documents seized during a search and seizure Retained by the Department - Revenue argued that Documents are retained due to proceedings pending before the Supreme Court - period beyond 30 days from the date of order of assessment u/s 158BC - HELD THAT:- The word proceeding is a term of wide importance and it includes the original proceedings as well as the appellate proceedings as it is trite law that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings (see the decision in State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. S. Subramaniam [1996 (1) TMI 480 - SUPREME COURT]. In the context in which the word 'proceedings' appear in section 132(8), it can be held to be used in a very comprehensive sense to include even revisional proceedings, provided the same is invoked under the statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act. Thus an assessment proceeding, appellate proceeding, and even revisional proceeding are all "proceedings under this Act".

  Proceedings under this Act expired by the disposal of the appeal by this Court. Thereafter, no proceedings under this Act are in existence. On the contrary, the special leave petition having been filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India cannot be regarded as a proceeding under this Act. As a taxing statute, strict interpretation is to be adopted and that being so, recourse by the assessee to the provisions of the Constitution by filing a special leave petition before the Supreme Court cannot be regarded as 'a proceeding under this Act'. The statutory authority lost its power to grant further authorisation to retain the documents. Therefore, even on this count, the respondents are not authorised or justified in retaining the documents of title seized by them under section 132 of the Act.

  Petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. Accordingly, while quashing Ext.P13 proceedings issued by the first respondent, this Court directs the first and second respondents to return to the petitioner the originals of document all executed before the Sub-Registrar's Office, Ernakulam, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

  ---

• 2022 (3) TMI 1357 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Validity of assessment order passed u/s 147 read with Section 144 - appellants contended that the assessment order is vitiated on account of non-service of notice or in other words, failure to follow the procedure under the Act and the Rules framed therein in the matter of service of notice - respondent submitted that the assessee despite having been granted sufficient opportunity did not submit the return of income which has been specifically recorded by the assessing officer - HELD THAT:- Firstly, the question of jurisdiction, as raised by the appellants in the instant case, is not purely a question of law. It is a mixed question of fact and law and, therefore, a vigilant assessee should raise such an issue at the earliest point of time. This is shown to have not done by the aseessee despite issuance of show cause notice and it has been canvassed for the first time in the writ petition. To decide such an issue, facts have to be examined. Such exercise cannot be done in a writ petition. It would be well open to the appellate authority to reexamine the facts, call for all details as to the manner and procedure adopted by the assessing officer while completing the assessment, examine the procedure for its correctness, whether it satisfies statutory requirement and then take a decision apart from the fact that the appellate authority will also be entitled to re-appreciate the facts which the assessee may place before the appellate authority. Therefore, to state that the appellants are purely questioning the assessment order on account of jurisdictional error, is not acceptable.

  We are of the considered view that the appellants should avail the alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

  We find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Consequently, the connected application also stands dismissed.

  ---

• 2022 (3) TMI 1356 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Revision u/s 264 - Refund of tax paid as advance tax after opting for VDIS scheme - Availing the benefit of VDIS while claimed the benefit by filing belated ITR u/s 139(4) - petitioner took advantage of the VDIS by voluntary disclosing his income in respect of assessment years 1993-94 to 1997-98 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the petitioner has first availed the benefit of VDIS by submitting the return 01.07.1997 and 31.12.1997 for the assessment year 1993-94 to 1997-98 and paid the income-tax @ 30%. Thereafter, he filed the belated IT returns u/s 139 on 23.01.1998 and deducted income so disclosed in VDIS i.e. voluntary disclose income.

  The voluntarily disclosed income is not liable to be included with regular income declared in the return u/s 139 as tax paid under VDIS is not liable to be refunded at any cost. The income tax return submitted under Section 139 is not liable to be reopened after availing of the VDIS. The source of income shown for voluntary disclose income and income source shown in the return under Section 139 is altogether different.

  Under Section 64 of the Finance Act only those persons are entitled to give declaration in respect of income chargeable under the tax under the Income Tax Act for any assessment year, firstly for which he has failed to furnish return u/s 139, secondly, which he has failed to disclose in a return of income furnished by him under the Income Tax Act before the date of commencement of the scheme, thirdly, which has escaped assessment by reason of the omission or failure.

  As per clause sub-clause (a), in this case, the petitioner did not furnish any return under Section 139 before 31.12.1997, therefore, in voluntarily disclosed income, he ought to have disclosed his all income from all the sources because till 31.12.1997, he did not disclose his any of the income by submitting the return under Section 139. He submitted the return under section 139, after 31.12.1997 i.e. 23.01.1998 to bring his case within clause 64 (1) (b).

  As submitted belated IT returns under section 139 but as per the requirement of section 64 (1)(b) that ought to have been filed before the date of commencement of the scheme. Since he did not submit any return under section 139 before this scheme, therefore involuntarily disclosed income, he ought to have disclosed his entire income. He cannot be permitted to commit mischief with the Act or VDIS by disclosing part of his income in VDIS and thereafter part of his income by submitting belated return as the Bombay High Court in case of Earnest Business Services (P) Ltd [2017 (3) TMI 1185 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has rightly held that both the tax altogether different and there cannot be any adjustment between them. Section 70 and 71 mandate that the income disclosed in VDIS shall not be included income under section 139 means income which had already been disclosed and that assessment is not liable to be reopened. The petitioner in order to avail the undue benefit of this scheme has filed the belated return by contending that the filing of such belated return is permissible and claimed the deduction of income as well as the refund of the tax.

  Thus we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner, Income-tax. Hence, Writ Petition is hereby dismissed.

  ---

• 2022 (3) TMI 1355 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Exemption u/s 11 - application of the respondent seeking registration under section 12AA rejected on the ground that there was no satisfactory materials produced by the respondent - As per revenue respondent/assessee failed to produce the requisite documents for consideration of its application seeking registration under section 12AA - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the respondent trust applied for registration under section 12AA of the Act, for the purpose of claiming exemption from the payment of tax. After thorough analysis of the legal position and the materials placed, by order dated 10.12.2010, the said application was rejected by the CIT, Madurai, based on the circular no.762 dated 18.02.1998 issued by the CBDT, New Delhi, on the ground that the respondent trust did not furnish the requisite satisfactory materials to grant such registration.

  Without properly examining the activities carrying on by the respondent trust and utilisation of the surplus funds received by them, in the light of the documents furnished, the ITAT, Chennai, merely referring to the objects of the respondent trust, opined that the purpose of the respondent trust was nothing but education; construction of infrastructure for pursuing educational activity is also by its very nature a necessary expenditure for effectively pursuing the educational objects; and the Act itself contemplates exemption to income of institution imparting education. Ultimately, it was concluded by the Tribunal that the respondent trust was eligible for registration under section 12AA.

  This court is of the view that such reasoning of the Tribunal without proper verification of the requisite materials, cannot be countenanced and on that score alone, the order impugned herein deserves to be set aside.

  We set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the matter to it for fresh consideration. The respondent trust is at liberty to submit all the requisite documentary evidence available to them to substantiate its claim for registration under Section 12AA of the Act, to the Tribunal, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

  ---

• 2022 (3) TMI 1354 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Assessment u/s 158BC - period of limitation - time limit prescribed in the statute for completion of block assessment in respect of persons other than the person on whom search was made - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, based on the search and seizure operation conducted in the premises of one R.Ganesan, on 12.12.2002, the respondent issued the notice under section 158BD to the respondent / assessee only on 17.02.2005, requiring them to file return of income in respect of the sand quarrying business carrying by them in the capacity as AOP. As such, the notice issued after three years from the date of search as well as after completion of the assessment under section 158BC, is certainly beyond the time limit of two years as provided under section 158BE. Taking note of the same, the Tribunal rightly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent / assessee on the ground that the notice issued under section 158BD is barred by limitation.

  Though the learned counsel for the appellant /Revenue contended that there is no time limit prescribed in the statute for completion of block assessment in respect of persons other than the person on whom search was made and therefore, the notice issued under section 158BD of the Act by the Assessing Officer is valid, this court is not inclined to accept the same, as it is settled law that where limitation is not prescribed, action must be taken within reasonable period.

  This court is of the opinion that there is no question of law, much less substantial question of law, arising for consideration in this appeal. Hence, the tax case appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.

  ---

• 2022 (3) TMI 1353 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Notice after four years - Deduction u/s 80IB - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, for the assessment years 2006-2007, 2004-2005 and 2004-2005 respectively, the respondents herein have filed their returns of income and the assessments were also concluded. After expiry of four years, notices under Section 148 of the Act were issued to the respondents herein on 01.03.2011, 16.03.2011 and 25.03.2011 respectively. On receipt of such notices, the respondents have submitted their objections by stating that they have not suppressed any material particulars at the time of original assessment and therefore, the re-assessment proceedings is not warranted - such objections were rejected by the respective appellant on 25.11.2011. Therefore, challenging the show cause notices issued under Section 148 of the Act as well as the orders of rejection dated 25.11.2011, the writ petitions were filed. The writ petitions were allowed by the learned Judge on the ground that there is no proof to show that there was escapement of income warranting initiation of re-assessment proceedings.

  In the decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Ganesh Housing Corporation Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4 & 1 [2016 (9) TMI 764 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] it was held that re-assessment proceedings are not warranted if the assessee did not suppress any material particulars at the time of assessment or the assessing officer had not collected any new materials to show that there was escapement of assessment.

  The contention of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellants that the re-assessment is not solely based on the amendments brought to the statute, but due to the fact that the respondents herein undertook and constructed the building as a contractor and not as a developer, also cannot be sustained in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court mentioned supra. The learned Judge also categorically held that the Assessing Officer is not in possession of tangible material evidence to initiate re-assessment proceedings against the respondents herein. Such a finding rendered by the learned Judge, in our opinion, is proper and therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders, which are impugned in these writ appeals.

  ---

• 2022 (3) TMI 1352 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Assessment u/s 144B - Faceless Assessment - request for personal hearing or to make oral submissions, on approval of the request, the personal hearing shall be conducted exclusively through Video Conferencing was not honoured - HELD THAT:- It is clear from the procedure prescribed u/s 144B(7)(vii & viii) that in the event of any variation proposed in the draft assessment order or final draft assessment order, the assessee is to be granted an opportunity by serving a notice to show cause and that if the assessee requests for personal hearing, the same is to be considered by the Chief Commissioner or Director General In-charge and the Regional Faceless Assessment Centre.

  Circular providing Standard Operating Procedure for personal hearing through Video Conferencing under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019 vide Circular bearing F.No.PR.CCIT/NeAC/SOP/2020-21 dated 23.11.2020 clarifies this position. Accordingly, when the petitioner makes such request for personal hearing, the same must be provided to the petitioner.

  As observed by Delhi High Court, the use of the word 'may' u/s 144B is to be construed as 'shall', if otherwise the requirements under the said Circular are complied with.

  Accordingly, on this ground itself, the Assessment order at Annexure-A dated 09.09.2021 and the Computation Sheet at Annexure-B dated 09.09.2021 and the Demand Notice at Annexure-C dated 09.09.2021 are hereby set aside

  ---

• 2022 (3) TMI 1351 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Scope of Section 148A as newly inserted - Comparison between old and new provisions for reassessment - Individual identity of Section 148 as prevailing prior to amendment - applicability of the newly inserted provisions of Section 148A and the amendments brought inter alia w.e.f. 1.4.2021 - identity of Section 148 as prevailing prior to amendment and insertion of section 148A - Whether after introduction of new provisions for reassessment of income by virtue of the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021, substituting the then existing provisions, would the substituted provisions survive and could be used for issuing notices for reassessment for the past period? - HELD THAT:- As relying on SUDESH TANEJA WIFE OF SHRI CP TANEJA [2022 (1) TMI 1212 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] no indication of surviving the past provisions after the substitution and in fact an active indication to the contrary, inescapable conclusion that we must arrive at is that for any action of issuance of notice under Section 148 after 01.04.2021 the newly introduced provisions under the Finance Act, 2021 would apply. Mere extension of time limits for issuing notice under section 148 would not change this position that obtains in law.

  Under no circumstances the extended period available in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 149 which we may recall now stands at 10 years instead of 6 years previously available with the revenue, can be pressed in service for reopening assessments for the past period. This flows from the plain meaning of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 149. In plain terms a notice which had become time barred prior to 01.04.2021 as per the then prevailing provisions, would not be revived by virtue of the application of Section 149(1)(b) effective from 01.04.2021. All the notices issued in the present cases are after 01.04.2021 and have been issued without following the procedure contained in Section 148A of the Act and are therefore invalid.

  If the plain meaning of the statutory provision and its interpretation is clear, by adopting a position different in an explanation and describing it to be clarificatory, the subordinate legislature cannot be permitted to amend the provisions of the parent Act. Accordingly, these explanations are unconstitutional and declared as invalid.

  We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept this analysis of the situation. In our understanding by virtue of notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 01.04.2021 issued by CBDT substitution of reassessment provisions framed under the Finance Act, 2021 were not deferred nor could they have been deferred. The date of such amendments coming into effect remained 01.04.2021.

  In the result we find that the notices impugned in the respective petitions are invalid and bad in law. The same are quashed and set aside. The learned Single Judge committed no error in quashing these notices. All the writ petitions are allowed. Appeals of the revenue are dismissed.

  ---

• 2022 (3) TMI 1350 - ITAT PUNE
  

  Disallowance u/s 80P(2)(d) - AO held that a Co-op Bank does not fall under the purview of coop society referred to in section 80P(2)(d) - AO denied the claim of exemption u/s 80P in respect of interest derived from Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd. - HELD THAT:- What is relevant for claiming of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) is that interest income should have been derived from the investment made by the assessee cooperative society with any other cooperative society. In the present case, the reasoning given by the lower authorities for denial of exemption u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act is that interest was received from cooperative bank not from cooperative society has no legs to stand as a cooperative bank is also a cooperative society as held by the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sri Biluru Gurubasava Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha Bagalkot [2015 (1) TMI 821 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]

  As regards to the eligibility of exemption u/s 80P(2)(d), this issue was considered by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society [2017 (1) TMI 1100 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] wherein referring to the case of Totgars Co-operative Sales Society Ltd. [2010 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] held that the ratio of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case (supra) held not to be applicable in respect of interest income on investment as same falls under the provisions of section 80P(2)(d) and not u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.

  Thus the reasoning adopted by the lower authorities cannot be accepted. However, there can be no dispute on facts that the appellant society had received the interest from another cooperative society and, therefore, the income so derived is exempt under the provisions of section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

  ---

• 2022 (3) TMI 1349 - ITAT PUNE
  

  Computation of capital gain - non-granting of deduction which the assessee claimed to have paid to other co-owners in connection with the property transferred - HELD THAT:- Since the full value of consideration, subject matter of the capital gain under consideration, did not have any relation with Gut No.222/13 in respect of which the assessee along with Sh. Vilas Keshavrao Autade paid a total sum of ₹ 50.00 lakh to the other four co-owners, this transaction of payment in my opinion has rightly been disassociated from the computation of capital gain from transfer to Gut Nos. 222/1 to 222/6.

  It can be gathered from the impugned order qua the Gut No.222/13 that Sh. Vilas Keshavrao Autade entered into agreement for jointly developing and selling the land which covered Gut No.222/13. Other four co-owners had some right and interest in the said land at Gut No.222/13. To purchase their right, a total sum of ₹ 50.00 lakh was paid by the assessee and Sh. Vilas Keshavrao Autade. On 17-08-2013, Sh. Vilas Keshavrao Autade entered into sale deed for transfer of his land admeasuring 80R out of Gut No.222/13 in favour of two sons of the assessee and no payment was made by the assessee or his sons towards acquiring the share in Gut No.222/13 along with Vilas Keshavrao Autade. This shows that sum of ₹ 25.00 lakh paid by the assessee along with Sh. Vilas Keshavrao Autade to the other co-owners was a consideration for transfer of Gut No. 222/13, inter alia, in the name of two sons of the assessee. Notwithstanding this factual aspect, since the payment of ₹ 25.00 lakh made by the assessee to other co-owners has no relation whatsoever with the property transferred that became subject matter of computation of long term capital gain under consideration, there can be no question of allowing any deduction in respect of this sum. The impugned order is countenanced on this score.

  Non-granting of exemption u/s.54F - Claim was jettisoned by the AO on the ground that the assessee did not purchase a new residential flat but only an “office premises” and hence, section 54F could not apply - It is apparent from bare reading of section 54F that the exemption becomes available towards capital gain arising from the transfer of any long term capital asset on purchasing or constructing one residential house in India. Thus, it is patent that in order to qualify for exemption u/s.54F, it is necessary that the new asset must be a ‘residential house’. Turning to the facts of the instant case, it is seen that the new asset purchased by the assessee is an ‘office premises’ and not a ‘residential premises’. In that view of the matter, the inescapable conclusion is that the authorities below were justified in repelling the assessee’s contention on this issue.

  ---

• 2022 (3) TMI 1348 - ITAT PUNE
  

  Denial of exemption u/s.54 - purchasing a new house in the name of the assessee’s son - whether exemption u/s.54 can be allowed when the new property purchased by the assessee in the name of someone else other than self? - Diversified decisions - HELD THAT:- When discordant views are rendered by different High Courts, an inferior authority under one of such High Courts, is bound to follow its jurisdictional High Court notwithstanding that the other view of the non-jurisdictional High Court may sound more appealing on individual level vis-a-vis the view of the jurisdictional High Court.

  The principle of following a view in favour of the assessee when contrary views are available, applies to the authorities acting under a neutral High Court, namely, which has not expressed any opinion – for or against - on that point. Once the jurisdictional High Court decides a particular issue in a particular manner, that manner has to be mandatorily followed by all the authorities acting under it so long as it holds the field and is not deactivated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court - we bound to follow the view taken by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. The ld. AR failed to draw my attention towards any other subsequent decision rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in favour of the assessee on this issue. Therefore, hold that the authorities below were justified in denying the benefit of exemption u/s 54. - Decided against assessee.

  ---

• 2022 (3) TMI 1347 - ITAT JAIPUR
  

  Additions in respect of employees contribution towards ESI/PF - Deposits before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) - HELD THAT:- As admittedly and undisputedly, the employees’ contribution to ESI and PF collected by the assessee from its employees have been deposited well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) - D/R has referred to the explanation to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021 and has also referred to the rationale of the amendment as explained by the Memorandum in the Finance Bill, 2021, however, we find that there are express wordings in the said memorandum which says “these amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and will accordingly apply to assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years”. In the instant case, the impugned assessment year is assessment year 2019-20 and therefore, the said amended provisions cannot be applied in the instant case.

  Addition by way of adjustment while processing the return of income u/s 143(1) made by the CPC towards the deposit of the employees’s contribution towards ESI and PF though paid before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act is hereby directed to be deleted.- Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2022 (3) TMI 1346 - ITAT PATNA
  

  Exemption u/s 11 - Denial of grant of registration and approval u/s. 12AA/80G - HELD THAT:- From perusal of the written submissions made by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(E), we note that they are dated 04.10.2018, 14.09.2018, but bears acknowledged stamp/seal of the office of the CIT(E), Patna which is dated 11.10.2018. It is noted that impugned order of the Ld. CIT(E) is dated 03.10.2018 whereas the submissions made and received by the O/o the CIT(E) are dated 11.10.2018. On a specific query by the Bench to assessee on these dates, it was submitted by him that the impugned order of rejection of application was passed by the Ld. CIT(E) without considering the submissions made by the assessee for which the assessee should not be made to suffer.

  In the present set of facts and circumstances and considering the material and the relevant documents on record, we find it fit and proper to set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) and to reconsider the application made by the assessee for grant of registration and approval u/s. 12AA/80G of the Act by taking into account the material which is already on record and to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Needless to say that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard with liberty to file any further details/documents before the Ld. CIT(E) in support of its application for grant of registration or approval.

  We set aside the impugned order and restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) to re-consider the application made for registration u/s 12AA afresh by providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

  ---

• 2022 (3) TMI 1345 - ITAT JAIPUR
  

  Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Eligibility of reasons to believe - AO has proposed to assess the income being notional rent in respect of the closing stock in the commercial complex, namely, “Kreishna Square” - HELD THAT:- There is no allegation by the AO in the reasons recorded that the income proposed to be assessed in the reassessment proceedings has escaped assessment due to the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Even otherwise, we find that all the relevant material in respect of the issue of assessment of rental income of the unsold stock was already available with the Assessing Officer at the time of scrutiny assessment. Hence, when the original assessment was framed under section 143(3) and the reopening is after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year then the Assessing Officer is not permitted to reopen the assessment until and unless the conditions prescribed in the proviso to section 147 are satisfied.

  Assessing Officer himself has not alleged that the income proposed to assess has escaped assessment for want of disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment.

  Thus in view of the above facts and circumstances as well as the binding precedents on the issue being decision of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd,[2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] and CIT Udaipur vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. [2016 (6) TMI 1045 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT], we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves to succeed and the impugned order of the ld. CIT (A) for A.Y. 2010-11 is set aside.

  Addition of the respective amounts by determining the ALV in respect of unsold stock of the assessee at “Krishna Square” the commercial complex - Notional ALV of the units held as stock in trade cannot be chargeable as income in the case of builder since the property is not constructed for letting out but the same is held for sale and actually was sold out on subsequent dates. Further, the builders take booking advance from several parties against the units and is under obligation to deliver possession of unsold stock to the concerned parties and such units cannot be let out by the builder. Therefore in absence of any specific provision in law ALV of stock in trade cannot be taxed. The sub-section (5) of section 23 was inserted by Finance Act 2017 with effect from 01.04.2018. The amended provision of sub section (5) of section 23 allows relaxation from taxability of ALV on unsold stock for the period upto 2 (two) years from the end of the financial year in which the certificate of completion of construction of the property is obtained. In the case of the assessee, construction of the property was completed on 31.08.2009.

  Even if we consider the relaxation period upto two years as envisaged in section 23(5), the ALV on unsold stock cannot be taxed for assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12. Accordingly,e decide this issue against the revenue and in favour of the assessee and consequently the additions made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT (A) for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12 are deleted and the order of the ld. CIT (A) is set aside.

  ---

• 2022 (3) TMI 1344 - ITAT JAIPUR
  

  Delayed employee’s contribution to ESI & PF - assessee filed complete details of the entire payments i.e. employee’s PF & ESI contribution paid before the due date of filing of return of income - Scope of amendment - HELD THAT:- There are series of decisions of various Hon’ble High Courts M/S. INDUSTRIAL SECURITY & INTELLIGENCE INDIA PVT. LTD [2015 (7) TMI 1063 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] on this issue and held that the payment of employees contribution in regard to PF & ESI if made before the due date of filing of return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act, the same is allowable as deduction as per the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act. See M/S MOHANLAL KHATRI VERSUS A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2 AJMER [2021 (11) TMI 1035 - ITAT JAIPUR]

  We are of the view that the amendment brought in the statue i.e., by Finance Act, 2021, the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act amended by inserting explanation 2 is prospective and not retrospective. Hence, the amended provisions of Section 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act are not applicable for the assessment year under consideration i.e. 2018-19 but will apply from assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years. Hence, this issue raised in assessee’s appeal is allowed.

  ---

• 2022 (3) TMI 1343 - ITAT MUMBAI
  

  Revision u/s 263 by CIT - Bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- When the assessment order which was subject matter of section 263 of the Act was passed after discreet enquiry and applying its mind the same cannot be revised under section 263 of the Act. Since order passed by the Ld. PCIT does not fulfill the condition laid down under section 263 of the Act the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law, so far as issue as to the bogus sub-contract expenses claimed by the assessee are concerned.

  We are unable to agree with this reasoning given by the Ld. PCIT as well as by Ld. D.R. for the Revenue because power to reopen the assessment under section 147 of the Act is vested with the AO and not with the Ld. PCIT. For that matters limitation cannot be stretched beyond two years as laid down under section 263(2) of the Act. So assuming jurisdiction qua income from arbitration award under section 263 of the Act is hopelessly time barred and as such the impugned order in this regard is not sustainable.

  We are of the considered view that the said order was passed on the basis of settled principle of law but we are to decide this issue on the basis of particular facts of this case. In the instant case, we are of the considered view that when after due enquiry, the AO has taken plausible view on the issue in question by calling necessary information from the assessee, such assessment order cannot be held to be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. So we are of the considered view that very initiation of proceedings by invoking the provisions contained under section 263 of the Act by the Ld. PCIT lacks jurisdictional error and as such not sustainable in the eyes of law.

  We are of the considered view that very initiation of the proceedings under section 263 of the Act are not sustainable in the eyes of law for lack of jurisdiction as required under section 263(2) to Explanation 1 of the Act, hence ordered to be quashed. Since the assessee has got the relief on legal issue, we find no need to go into the merits of this case. Resultantly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

  ---

• 2022 (3) TMI 1342 - ITAT HYDERABAD
  

  Validity of Survey proceedings u/s 133A conducted in absence of assessee - Manner of conducting survey u/s 133A - excess stock containing the ornaments given by the customer for repairs/re-modelling available at the stock at the time of the survey - additional income in the hands of the assessee who happens to be the proprietor of the business - HELD THAT:- It is also not in dispute that the summons, u/s 131 of the Act were issued to the assessee on 7.11.2012 itself requiring her presence on 8.11.2012 before the Income Tax Authorities. Assessee did not present herself as required in the summons but on the other hand, the husband of the assessee was present on 8.11.2012 before the authorities and he submitted before the authorities that in part performance of his promise, he paid a sum of ₹ 5.00 lakhs for the A.Y 2013-14 towards advance tax and produced the copy of challan.

  Subsequently on 18.12.2014, though the assessee challenged the authority of her husband to give any statement binding her, did not dispute the fact of survey or the findings of any excess stock during that survey worth - Even at that time also, the assessee did not plead about the errors, if any, in the valuation of jewellery or that part of excess stock contains the gold ornaments received from or being given by certain customers for repairs/re-modelling available in the shop. Even during the appeal before us also, no details of such customers or the gold ornaments attributable to them are produced.

  There was a time gap of more than 3 ½ years between the survey operation and the assessee giving her statement before the Income Tax Authorities. If the plea taken by the assessee is correct, the assessee should have brought it to the notice of the authorities her grievance in respect of the manner of conducting the survey or manner of valuing the excess stock or the details about the gold ornaments that were given for repairs/re-modelling by the customers.

  It could be seen from the record that even during the stage of first appellate proceedings, the assessee did not mince many words nor had she took any such plea on those aspects. The assessee is taking several pleas at several stages and they did not fit in the conduct of an ordinary prudent person. We are therefore, not inclined to accept the plea taken by the assessee before us and the learned CIT (A) considered these aspects in a proper way while granting relief and declining to delete the addition to the extent - We, therefore, do not propose to interfere with the findings of the learned CIT (A). The appeal of the assessee is accordingly found to be devoid of merits and dismissed. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

  ---

1 ....91011121314151617........ 81