"Ajay Kumar Agrawal FCA, a science graduate and fellow chartered accountant in practice for over 26 years. Ajay has been in continuous practice mainly in corporate consultancy, litigation in the field of Direct and Indirect laws, Regulatory Law, and commercial law beside the Auditing of corporate and Banks. He has wide experience in variety of consulting matters of corporate and multinationals in the field of merger & acquisitions, corporate restructuring , across sectors , domestic and international taxation. Litigation has been his favorite area of practice and he has advised corporate and multination’s corporate in the field of Direct Tax, FERMA & FDI Laws, Search and Seizure segments. He is also contributor to the professional publications. He was also associated as member with Professional development committee of NIRC of ICAI. His email id is ajay@caajaykagrawal.com "
The Tribunal ruled that once an assessee validly opts for the DCF method and submits a qualified valuation report, the Assessing Officer cannot switch to the NAV method. The decision reinforces the statutory valuation options available under Rule 11UA.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that reassessment based solely on search material seized from a third party must be initiated under Section 153C and not Sections 147/148. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment for lack of jurisdiction and absence of a mandatory satisfaction note.
The Kolkata ITAT held that advances received from flat purchasers in the ordinary course of a real-estate business cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal ruled that such advances were genuine business liabilities regularly adjusted against sales.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order could not be revised under Section 263 since the conditions for treating jewellery expenses as perquisite under Section 17(2) were not satisfied. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Delhi ITAT held that penalty proceedings under Section 270A are invalid when the Assessing Officer does not identify the precise statutory clause for under-reporting or misreporting of income. The Tribunal ruled that such omission goes to the root of jurisdiction.
ITAT Delhi held that Section 56(2)(x) could not be applied to property transactions relating to Assessment Year 2017-18 because the provision became effective only from AY 2018-19. The Tribunal deleted the addition made on the difference between stamp duty value and purchase consideration.
The ITAT Dehradun held that exemption under Section 54B cannot be denied merely for non-deposit in the Capital Gains Account Scheme when the assessee actually invested the sale proceeds in agricultural land within the statutory period. The ruling treats such non-deposit as a procedural lapse.
ITAT Delhi held that lawful TDS credit cannot be denied merely because the Assessing Officer overlooked an earlier rectification order under Section 154. The Tribunal directed grant of TDS credit and deletion of interest under Sections 234A and 234B.
The ITAT Visakhapatnam reduced a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) from Rs.30,000 to Rs.10,000 after treating non-compliance with three notices under Section 142(1) as a single default. The Tribunal granted partial relief while holding that the assessee failed to establish reasonable cause for non-compliance.
ITAT Indore held that Section 54 exemption cannot be denied merely for failure to deposit capital gains in the Capital Gain Deposit Scheme. The Tribunal ruled that actual investment in a new residential house within the prescribed two-year period satisfies the substantive requirement.
