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.
ITAT Amritsar held that initiation of Assessment Proceedings u/s 153C, instead of section 153A, in case of the searched assessee makes the entire assessment invalid. Accordingly, penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is not maintainable.
In the case of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Goel Vs National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), the issue of extending another opportunity to the assessee in ex-parte proceedings is examined. This article provides an analysis of whether a reasonable opportunity should be given to the assessee, even when an adjournment petition is rejected. The possibility of extending the opportunity of hearing in set-aside proceedings is also discussed. Read the full text of the order by ITAT Amritsar and the conclusion reached in this case.
