ITAT Kolkata held that once the jurisdiction of the assessee is transferred from Delhi to Kolkata, every action for all the assessment year lies with ITO, Kolkata. Accordingly, notice issued u/s 148 by ITO, New Delhi is bad and illegal.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under section 272A(1)(c) not warranted as reasonable cause shown for delay in providing the details by the assessee and later in the end, the assessee had shared all the relevant details.
ITAT Pune held that interest income earned by the cooperative society from the investment with cooperative banks qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act.
Jharkhand High Court held that as liability of earlier management cannot be shifted to current management, similarly, credit of earlier management cannot be shifted to current management. Hence, claim of transitional credit prior to the approval of the resolution plan by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is not allowable.
ITAT Kolkata held that making the addition for under valuation of closing stock for not adding making charges specifically for the year under appeal cannot be held to be justified unless and until corresponding adjustment is made for the opening stock. Accordingly, addition deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte due to the non-appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, de novo adjudication ordered as CIT(A) didn’t rendered any finding on merits.
ITAT Pune held that exemption under section 54B of the Income Tax Act based on new agricultural land bought in the name of the son and daughter-in-law and not in the name of the assessee is not allowable.
Bombay High Court held re-opening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act for mere change of opinion is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law.
Calcutta High Court held that considering the provisions, order passed u/s 148A(d) is within three years and accordingly, Principal CIT (PCIT) and not the Principal Chief CIT (PCCIT) is ‘Specified Authority’ for approval of the same. Thus, AO rightly took approval from Principal CIT.
ITAT Nagpur held that the assessee is undoubtedly entitled to hold two different portfolios in respect of the same kind of asset i.e. stock in trade and investment. Since, the land was held as investment the same is assessable to tax under the head ‘capital gain’.
