It is seen in a number of cases that notices u/s 148A(b) are being issued on the basis of report of Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department, the Income Tax Officers hardly make any independent enquiry and thus relies on the report of Investigation Wing. This is called ‘borrowed satisfaction’ and an assessment order culminated on the basis of borrowed satisfaction can’t survive the test of appeal and shall be set aside at some stage in appeal.
Assessee cannot be called upon to pay the tax which has been deducted at source from his income, even though not deposited by his employer – Quashes demand on employee arising from TDS not deposited by Kingfisher Airlines.
Supreme Court held that date of Panchnama last drawn would be relevant date for considering period of limitation of two years and not last date of authorisation
Explore the concept of Income Tax Protective Assessment and the Supreme Court’s stance in the case of Lalji Haridas vs ITO (1961). The Income Tax Act lacks provision for protective assessment, but in situations where income ownership is unclear due to litigation, the concept arises. The Supreme Court, in the Lalji Haridas case, established that protective assessments are permissible when ownership cannot be immediately determined.
Hyderabad ITAT held that gift of house to father just prior to sale of land was a camouflage to claim Section 54F deduction as Assessee owned two house properties
Section 139(8A) was introduced by Finance Act 2022 and was applicable from 1.4.2022. If we remember in past a belated return u/s Section 139(4) could be filed within one year from the end of assessment year or completion of assessment whichever is earlier. This position was there till Assessment Year 2016-17.
Mumbai ITAT holds that while computing capital gains arising on transfer of a capital asset received by the Assessee under a will, the indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed with respect to the year in which the first owner held the asset
Calcutta High Court held that revision application filed under section 264 of the Income Tax Act allowable on account of bonafide mistake which cannot be rectified by filing revised return since original return was filed belatedly.
ITAT held that profit from sale of property purchased to exploit commercially and sold as a stock in trade cannot be assessed to tax under the head capital gain and shall be assessed under the head, profit and gains of business or profession;
Section 155(14) provides that if any claim of TDS is left at the time of filing of income tax return and assessee subsequently comes to know of any tax deducted by a party but not informed till the date of filing of income tax return, and subsequently the said TDS is also reflected in Form 26AS, then assessee should file revised income tax return and claim TDS.
