A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the provisions of section 145 (3) have not been invoked and the books of account of the assessee have not been rejected. This being so, admittedly, estimation of the assessee’s income is not permissible.
ITAT held that where notice u/s 148 was not served on the assessee in accordance with law the reassessment made consequent thereto was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. In the case on hand as the Revenue could not prove the service of notice u/s 148 on the assessee in accordance with law the re-assessment made u/s 147 read with section 144 pursuant to such notice is void ab initio and bad in law.
Framing laws is the sovereign right of the state and this is not subservient to any contract between two businesses. Needless to say that in the case of any conflict between a contract and the law, the latter prevails.
Explore the Calcutta High Court ruling on PCIT vs Organon, examining the delay condonation application. Legal insights, precedents, and implications for income tax appeals.
Explore the ITAT Jaipur ruling in Shree Radheshyam Sharnam Vs CIT case. Delve into the impact of Covid-19 on document submission, appeal delays, and the final decision under section 80G(5)(vi).
HC held that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act cannot be called upon to reexamine the facts or to re-appreciate the tenor and ambit of the document which was placed before the Assessing Officer, CITA and more importantly the Tribunal has noted that the assessee has failed to establish the reimbursement which was pleaded by producing document despite opportunity being given at the appellate stage.
Deduction reduced on account of interpretative process cannot per se be equated with furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
Explore Jayaprakasha Rai appeal against ITAT Bangalore order on TCS credit denial for Assessment Year 2018-19. Detailed analysis and implications discussed.
Calcutta High Court quashes IT notice against Tinplate Company, citing change of opinion in assessing officer approach. Detailed analysis and implications.
The assessee received intimation under section 143(1) of the Act from CPC Bengaluru and in the said intimation, certain adjustments were made as regards deduction claimed under section 11(2) of the Act, which according to the assessee have been incorrectly disallowed since assessee case is directly supported by the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Natwarlal Chaudhry Charitable Trust 189 ITR 656 (Cal).
