ITAT Kolkata held that in terms of block assessment under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, reopening of unabated assessment without any incriminating material found with respect to concerned assessment year is impermissible in law.
The assessee filed his return of Income on 27.08.2019. After filing the return, assessee received intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 23.03.2021 and found that relief under section 90 of the Act had not been allowed amounting to Rs 73,658/-.
A proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act was initiated against the assessee as during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act it was seen that in the ABN Amro Bank account of the assessee a cash amounting to Rs. 20 Lakh was deposited.
ITAT Kolkata held that notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act by AO not having valid jurisdiction is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, assessment proceeding based on an invalid notice is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Kolkata held that amendment to section 43CA of the Income Tax Act vide the Finance Act, 2020 via which tolerance band for deviation between actual sale price and stamp duty valuation increased from 5% to 10% has retrospective application.
ITAT Kolkata held that duty drawback is part of gross receipts for the purpose of calculation of ‘gross receipts’ under the presumptive taxation as per section 44AD of the Income Tax Act. Thus, appeal allowed.
ITAT Kolkata held that interest expenditure incurred on loans taken for acquiring property is allowable as deduction under section 48. However, from Assessment Year 2024-2025, due to amendment in provisions, such expenditure will not be allowed as deduction.
ITAT Kolkata held that imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act untenable without concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Accordingly, penalty deleted.
ITAT Kolkata held that imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act justified as no plausible explanation was given by the assessee for non-compliance of notices served by AO.
ITAT Kolkata held that treating purchases from concern as bogus merely because for another year purchases from the said concern were treated by AO as bogus is not justified since in relevant year AO duly treated the purchases as genuine.
