ITAT Raipur held that providing unreasonably short period of time of six days for furnishing reply vide notice issued u/s. 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act is against the mandate of law and hence liable to be set aside.
ITAT Raipur held that disallowance under section 43B of the Income Tax Act towards unpaid VAT liability cannot be sustained since the amount was not claimed as an expenditure in P&L account. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
The case of assessee was selected through compulsory manual Statutory notices u/s 143(2) was issued on 21.09.2017. Further, notice u/s 142(1) dated 08.12.2018 and 10.12.2018 were issued, seeking details of sales & purchases of lands, producing books of accounts and to substantiate the Short-Term Capital Gain.
ITAT Raipur that where the income of the assessee has been computed by applying a gross profit rate, there is no need to look into the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act as gross profit rate takes care of expenses otherwise than by way of crossed cheque.
ITAT Raipur sets aside assessment against Adarsh Rice Mill due to lack of jurisdiction under Section 147. Merits of the case remain undecided.
ITAT Raipur held that reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act without any fresh material, amounts to mere change of opinion, and hence the same is not sustainable in law.
ITAT Raipur held that change in method of depreciation can be reason for difference in closing stock of plant and machinery in previous year vis-à-vis opening stock in current year and the same needs further examination, hence matter restored back.
The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued. Consequently, notice u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were also issued.
ITAT Raipur held that due to non-response for assessee if addition of income is done as Form 26AS then obviously TDS credit available in Form 26AS needs also to be allowed. Thus, appeal partly allowed.
ITAT Raipur held that passing of order by CIT(A) without considering adjournment request of the assessee is not justifiable in law. Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the same after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard.
