The date on which AO passed the above order was 28.11.2019; therefore, re-opening of case for AY.2011-12 is time barred as per the clear provisions of section 150(2) of the Act. Hence, the direction of the CIT(A) is not in accordance with law and is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Surat held that in absence of any corroborative evidence with regard to payment of amount mentioned in sauda chitti, assessee is not entitled to claim enhanced cost of acquisition and hence appeal of the assessee dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai held that additional claim of deduction of bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act filed during the course of assessment other than filing a revised return is allowable. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that notice for re-assessment proceeding under section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued on a non-existing entity i.e. merged entity is void ab initio and hence is liable to be quashed.
Among the documents seized contained information pertaining to the Assessee and AO recorded his satisfaction that those documents have bearing on the determination of total income of the Assessee.
The matter was remanded back to AO to review the non-taxability of interest from Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) as part of the Corpus Fund under Section 11(1)(d) and and the decision of CIT(E) in respect of the condonation application in filing Form 10B belatedly.
Assessee claimed to have submitted details / documents / explanation as required by AO for the purpose of assessment in the case of assessee under section 143(3) during the course of assessment proceedings.
The assessee earned income from selling milk and filed her return for AY 2017-18 declaring income of Rs.1,78,110/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny with the reason of “large value cash deposits during demonetization period as compared to returned income”.
Before ITAT it was submitted that AO determined the total income/revised income as Rs.12,84,93,150/-. Thus the assessed income is lesser than the returned income of Rs.13.30 crores.
Assessee has not violated the provision of the Act u/s 271B as the assessee has Audited his accounts as per the provisions of section 44AB within the stipulated time but only filed the same belatedly.
