Assessee was engaged in agro-based trading, faced reassessment for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 based on information from a survey under Section 133A conducted at premises linked to Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta and associates.
The balance tax demand was also paid. Later, the Revisional Authority issued a notice under Section 64, claiming the appellate order was prejudicial to revenue. Assessee objected, stating that once benefits under the Scheme were granted, revision was not permissible.
Assessee-trust registered under Sections 12A and 80G had filed its return of income for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 declaring nil income. The return was processed under Section 143(1), and the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS.
Depreciation claim under Section 32 was allowable on actual cost of assets which the assessee paid to the erstwhile partners for taking over from a dissolved firm. It did not matter if the partners were from the same family, as the Act did not make any such distinction.
Assessee claimed deduction under section 54F on the basis that the long-term capital gain earned from the transfer of tenancy/possessory rights was invested for the purchase of a residential flat.
This Court considering the nature of the cargo and considering the facts that the said cargo had arrived at Chennai Port on 29.11.2024, deemed it fit to direct Revenue to reconsider the impugned order within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Significant to note that the assessment order was passed in the backdrop of information received from the French Government under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), indicating that assessee held bank accounts in HSBC Private Bank (Suisse), SA, Switzerland.
When sales were not doubted, entire purchases could not be disallowed merely on the ground that suppliers were non-genuine, it was deemed appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of AO for carrying out limited verification and addition should be restricted to profit estimation.
Notices issued to a taxpayer on the ground that the Income Tax Department failed to issue them in compliance with the mandatory faceless assessment procedure, thus disregarding binding judicial precedents that have adjudicated on the matter was invalid.
The court held that Revenue would be permitted to revive the show cause notices already issued and take further proceedings in accordance with law. It was also clarified that other connected legal issues not directly covered by this ruling remained open to be contested at the appropriate stage.
