Since no notice under section 143(2) had been issued for completion of the re-assessment proceedings, therefore, the re-assessment order itself was bad in law and the same could not be revised under section 263.
Recently many of the newspaper circulating in Surat city have published a news in which they claimed that a person namely ‘Manish Pachhigar’, who was arrested with Asst. Charity Commissioner, Surat in alleged bribery case of Rs. 75000/- is a Chartered Accountant. While as a Matter of fact ‘Manish Pachhigar’ is not a Chartered Accountant and he is not holding degree of Chartered Accountant. ICAI Surat (WIRC) has taken strong objection to reporting by Newspapers of ‘Manish Pachhigar’ as a CA and have conducted a Press conference on 12th June 2019 and issued a press release to them to issue clarification in this regard.
AO was not justified in holding that losses incurred by assessee due to selling goods at less than cost price to e-commerce operators was to create marketing intangibles assets and therefore the loss to the extent it was created due to predatory pricing should be regarded as capital expenditure incurred by assessee and should be disallowed because where a trader transferred his goods to another trader at a price less than the market price and the transaction was a bonafide one, the taxing authority could not take into account the market price of those goods, ignoring the books results of assessee and resorting to a process of estimating total income of assessee in the manner in which he did, what could be taxed was only income that accrues or arises as laid down in Sec.5, nothing beyond Sec.5 could be brought to tax.
Exemption under section 11 in respect on the surplus reflected by assessees accounts was denied by AO because assessee was not registered under section 12AA, however, the matter was remanded back to AO to verify as to whether expenditure were actually incurred for the purposes of the running the institution or organizing its activities which was allowable as deduction from surplus and assessee was directed to establish its bona fides before claiming the exemption.
Since the stock sold was very old, it was not strange to sell them at reduced rate and AO had no authority to compel assessee as to at which rate, assessee had to make sale of its goods, hence, deduction of trading loss on sale of stock was allowable.
As CIT(E) rejected assessee’s application for registration ex-parte under section 12AA without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee in terms of section 12AA(1)(b)(ii), therefore, the matter was restored back to the file of the CIT (Exemptions) for fresh examination and adjudication.
Deduction under Section 36(1)(va) with regard to Employees’ Provident Fund, Labour Welfare Fund and Employees’ State Insurance was not allowable where contribution had been made after the due date prescribed in the respective enactments.
Reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) by issuing notice under section 148 but without issuance of notice u/s 143(2) was invalid and void ab initio and thus liable to be quashed.
Postpone the last date for filing yearly returns in Forms GSTR 9,GSTR 9A and GSTR 9C or withdraw it completely, at least for the FY 2017-18
Assessee-trust was entitled to claim excess expenditure over income being deficit to be carried forward for setting it off in subsequent years as income derived from trust property had to be computed on commercial principles and if commercial principles were applied then adjustment of expenses incurred by trust for charitable and religious purposes in earlier years against income earned in subsequent year would be regarded as application of income in the subsequent year having regard to benevolent provisions contained in section 11 and such adjustment would be excluded from income of the trust under section 11(1)(a).
