ITAT Raipur quashes Sec 147 reassessment in ITO Vs Bishambhar Dayal Agrawal. Held reopening based on change of opinion, not new material, is invalid. Cites Kelvinator.
The petitioner contends that the 1st respondent lacked jurisdiction to issue notice, as the 1st respondent is not the Assessing Officer. The petitioner objected on 28.03.2016, but the 2nd respondent directed compliance by 25.07.2016, threatening the imposition of penalty.
ITAT Pune held that satisfaction note is required to be recorded u/s.153C for each assessment year, thus, recording of consolidated satisfaction note for different assessment years (AY) would vitiate the entire assessment proceedings.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards undisclosed income rightly sustained since assessee failed to explain the incriminating material found during the course of search. Penalty under section 271AAB too sustained.
ITAT Raipur held that application for registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act rightly rejected since assessee, without any justifiable reason, failed to provide requisite details/ documents specifically called by CIT(E).
Guwahati High Court held that AO can make addition of any other income which has escaped assessment but discovered during re-opening process even if the same is not specifically mentioned in re-opening order.
ITAT Delhi held that CIT(E) has rejected application for registration u/s. 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act without giving cogent reason by disposing the matter in hyper technical manner without discussing on merits is not tenable in law.
ITAT Raipur held that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is liable to be struck down for the failure on the part of the A.O. to put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) was sought to be imposed.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of interest expenditure attributable to interest-free advances not justified since sufficient interest free funds available and also there existed commercial expediency in giving interest free advances. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Bangalore deletes additions under Section 69 citing presumptive taxation under Section 44AD and lack of supporting evidence by the AO.
