Assessment completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144 for AY 2010-11 after making of addition of Rs. 36,092/- on account of wrong claim of deduction u/s. 24 and Rs. 23,43,705/- was also disallowed on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act, Rs. 24,22,305/- on account of unaccounted receipts from Shiva Phrama Ltd. and Rs. 2,06,883/- on account of unaccounted receipts received from various companies.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisionary proceeding under section 263 of the Income Tax Act quashed since enquiry already conducted by AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the interest earned on the investment made with the Coopearitve Society which was carried out the banking business is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act.
Rupesh Kantilal Savla Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – Power to assess block period of ten years could not be attracted in case of a Income Tax search which had taken place prior to 1-4-2017
Assessee was a medical professional, filed his returns for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. The appeal concerned an addition of over Rs. 179 crore made by AO under section 68 alleging unexplained cash credits in the assessee’s hands.
AO, based on the information, found that both suppliers were subject to proceedings and were found guilty of economic offenses punishable under the relevant CGST Act, 2017, and KGST Act, 2017.
Entire cash deposits made during demonetization could not be treated as unexplained credit and a reasonable addition of 20% of total cash deposit would be sufficient to avoid the possibility of revenue leakage.
The notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee, along with the notice reasons recorded for reopening assessment were also supplied to the assessee.
Held that the shareholding of the assessee (voting right) has continued to remain not less than 50% as prescribed in clause (b) of proviso to 47(xiv) of the Act, even after issuing of new shares by the above said company.
ITAT Delhi held that order passed u/s. 148A(d) is non-speaking since AO failed to provide adequate counter explanation against reasons furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, assessment u/s. 147 non-est and void ab initio.
