Category: Judgments
In case of superficial enquiry by AO PCIT may be justified in invocation of revisionary powers u/s 263 but not before making some enquiries – ITAT In A Recent judgment, ITAT Lucknow has held that in absence of findings of Assessing Officer (AO), PCIT may be justified in …
High Court declined to quash proceedings u/s 276B r/w 278B for delay in deposit of TDS and delay in filing TDS returns. In a recent judgment, the Madras High Court held that when substantial evidence was already on record, it cannot quash the proceedings under section 276B r/w …
Once ITAT set-aside order of CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, CIT(A) do not have any power to direct the Assessing Officer to frame Fresh Assessment. In a recent judgment, ITAT Pune has held that once ITAT set-aside the order u/s 250 for denovo adjudication, the CIT(A)/NFAC do not have …
Addition u/s 41(1) deleted as spot enquiry of creditors done by Inspector was not as per procedure laid down In a recent judgment, ITAT Lucknow has deleted addition under section 41(1) of Income Tax Act based on spot enquiry of creditors made by the AO through inspector who …
Law does not require needless formalism when substantive compliance is manifest – ITAT deleted disallowance of exemption made under section 54 – ITAT In a recent judgment, ITAT Mumbai has deleted disallowance of exemption made u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act on the premise that the assessee …
There is no legal provision which compels a person to necessarily deposit/invest the cash available in hand – ITAT In A recent judgment, ITAT Jabalpur has held that there is no legal provision which compels a person to necessarily deposit/invest the cash available in hand in bank. Keeping …
ITAT deleted addition of undisclosed income made solely on the basis of WhatsApp chat message In a recent judgment, ITAT Ahmedabad deleted addition made solely on the basis of WhatsApp chat message on account of undisclosed income being unaccounted cash received as ‘on-money’ on sale of land. ABCAUS …
On omission/repeal of Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) of the CGST Rules, all pending proceedings were not preserved and will stand lapsed. In a recent judgment, Bombay High Court held that following the omission/repeal of Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) of the CGST Rules. in the absence of any saving …
Omission in mentioning name of lender in the audit report no basis to discard cogent documentary evidence – ITAT In a recent judgment, ITAT Agra has held that any omission in mentioning the name of lender/payee in the tax audit report cannot be made basis to discard assessee’s …
In deciding the authenticity of agricultural income, certificate from the Tahsildar and expert report cannot be ignored in preference to unverified Google Earth Pro images – ITAT In a recent judgment, ITAT Chennai has held that in deciding the agricultural income, the authenticated documents such as the certificate …
