Wherever special benches are constituted, the special benches shall, as far as possible, commence hearing within 120 days of the benches being constituted. In the cases in which the respective bench is not in a position to commence hearing of the matter within 120 days for any specific reason, e.g. directions of the Hon’ble Court above or blocking the hearing awaiting decision of a higher judicial forum, it shall record the reasons, in brief, for delay in commencement for hearing. Sincere endeavour shall be made for expeditious disposal of Special Bench cases.
ITO Vs Shri Suresh Chand Gupta (ITAT Kolkata) On the basis of evidences filed by assessee its claim was to be allowed where income in question was a bona fide long-term capital gains arising from sale of shares and hence, exempt from tax as there was no material indicating assessee’s nexus with alleged share price rigging. FULL […]
Where assessee had already paid income-tax on the amount surrendered during the course of survey, it could not be said that the surrendered income was not voluntary and the assessee wanted to conceal the income, therefore, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified.
Reopening of assessment beyond four years merely on the basis of information received, however, without pointing out failure of assessee to furnish truly and fully all material facts was not valid.
Where valid search was not conducted at assessee’s business premises then until and unless AO assumes valid jurisdiction under section 153A, assessment, therefore, made in consequence of notice issued under section 153A, was invalid and void ab initio.
The terrace of the building cannot be considered as distinct and separate but certainly is a part of the house property. Therefore, letting-out space on the terrace of the house property for installation and operation of mobile tower / antenna certainly amounts to letting-out a part of the house property itself.
Hence it would be an appropriate analogy that the entire amount which is liable to be treated as deemed dividend has to be apportioned between both the shareholders in whose cases the conditions stipulated for attracting the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act are satisfied. Therefore as pleaded by the Ld.AR, it would be judicious to make addition in the hands of Shri V. Ramesh an amount of Rs.26,84,902/- and Shri S. Ramu – Rs.26,84,901/-. It is ordered accordingly.
Shri Deepak Awatram Valecha Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) From the record we found that six plots of agriculture land was bought by the assessee with eight other persons. These plots of land were held for lease by owner and thereafter sold and profit accruing there on was claimed as exempt being income from sale of […]
Pradeep Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) In the present case, it is noticed that the AO issued notices u/s 148 and 142(1) of the Act at the address D-60, Noida Authority, Sector-108, Noida. However, the assessment was framed by mentioning the address of the assessee as P-3, Shop No. LGF 20, Krishna Apra Plaza, Sector-18, […]
Shanta Kapoor Vs ACIT (ITAT Agra) If AO omits to issue notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 to all legal representative (LRs) of deceased assessee, the reassessment would be null and void. Assessee ‘deceased’ had 3 legal heirs, two being sons and one daughter. The AO had not issued notices to all the […]
