In the instant case, assessee had not filed any return within stipulated time framed u/s 139(1), but had filed the return u/s 139(8A) (updated return) on 31.03.2023 along with Form 67 filed online on the said date claiming FTC.
Addition of cash deposit under section 68 was not justified as the same could only be invoked if the taxpayer maintained books of accounts and assessee filed an income tax return under Section 44AD which did not require books of accounts.
Analysis of Swarn Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar) on validity of notice u/s 148 by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) vs Faceless Assessing Officer. Key rulings discussed.
Relying on various judicial precedents, including the cases of Harish Sharma vs. ITO and Daulatram Rawatmull vs. CIT, the representative contended that in the absence of any separate source of income, the surrendered amount should be treated as business income.
ITAT Amritsar decision on Aay Kay Manufacturing Co. Vs ITO-CPC discusses TCS payable and Section 43B compliance, offering key insights for taxpayers.
ITAT concluded that the service of notice under Section 148 was improper and did not meet statutory requirements. Consequently, the reopening of the assessment was deemed invalid, and the assessment order was quashed as void ab initio.
Explore the ITAT Amritsar’s order in the case of Smt. Bharti Singh vs. DCIT, involving a remand for accurate fact-finding after negligent appeal dismissal.
Explore the ITAT Amritsar order in the case of Smt. Bharti Singh vs. ACIT, covering reassessment jurisdiction, reasons, and legal implications.
ITAT Amritsar held that excess stock found during the survey only be treated as income under the head business income and not as deemed income under section 69B of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Amritsar held that once source of surrendered income is proved to be business income, the same cannot be taxed as deemed income under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.
