Alpine Electronics Asia Pte Ltd Vs. DGIT (Delhi HC)- Draft order is not the final assessment order and does not result in completion of assessment. Under sub-section (2) to Section 143, the assessee has a right to accept, within 30 days, the draft assessment order or has right to file objections with the Dispute Resolution Panel and the Assessing Officer. Under Section 144C(3), the Assessing Officer shall complete assessment proceedings on the basis of the draft order only if the assessee files his acceptance to the variations or if no objections are received within 30 days.
Dinesh Chandra Agarwal Vs. UOI (Allahabad High Court)- Rule 13E of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963 as amended on June 3, 2009 imposes a complete ban on practice by the retired members before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Granting a interim relief Honorable high Court has held as under
Rajat Export Import India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (Delhi HC)- The reasons to believe recorded in writing by the Assessing Officer in the present case have been quoted earlier. They are detailed and show application of mind. The reasons record inferences and conclusions. We wanted to examine the material or evidence on the basis of which conclusions/inferences were drawn. When the record of the Assessing Officer was produced, it was noticed that the documents/ material furnished by the Investigating Wing was not on record and, therefore the order dated 2.12.2011 was passed. Subsequently, on 16.12.2011, the Assessing Officer appeared and had stated that the information given/furnished by the Investigating Wing was in a CD. The print out thereof was furnished. Copy of the material/ evidence relating to the petitioner was furnished to the counsel for the petitioner. In these circumstances, we did not feel that there was any necessity for the respondent to file counter affidavit.
Without adjudicating on the issue whether the Advertisement, Marketing and Sales Promotion expenditure incurred by the taxpayer can be characterised as an international transaction as per Section 92B of the Act, the Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the TPO in working out ALP is not justified and directed the AO to delete the adjustment made by the TPO.
A trust can claim exemption provided a specific position of income is applied for purposes of the Trust. Income includes capital gain and hence trust will lose exemption if such income is not applied.
Exemption under section 54F is subject to the provision of sub-section (4), meaning thereby, the amount of net consideration is to be appropriated towards the purchase of new asset within one year before the date on which the transfer of the original asset took place or if not utilised for the purchase or construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income u/s 139, it shall be deposited (unutilised portion) by the assessee, before furnishing such return, in any account or in capital gain account in the bank or institution as specified in any scheme by the Central Government, by notification in the official gazette and the proof of the such deposit in the capital gains tax account shall be accompanied while filing the return.
Whether the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs.12,03,000/- in the partner’s capital account u/s 68 of the I.T.Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the assessee had no evidence to prove the identity
Read about the ITAT Ahmedabad case between DCIT and Shri Jayesh Chandulal Patel where penalty proceedings were restored for fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer.
Whether assessing Officer has jurisdiction to rectify the original assessment u/s 154 of the Act, as it was change of opinion and the review of order passed by his predecessor was not permissible under law. Held – That assessing officer has a power to rectify the assessment by invoking the provisions of Section 154 of the Act. The rate of depreciation claimed by the assessee on trucks at 40% was wrongly allowed as the assessee was not plying trucks owned by it on hire but was utilizing the trucks for its own purposes and hence rate of depreciation applicable was 25%.
Smt. Amita Agarwal v. ACIT (ITAT Agra) -Assessee filed her return wherein income arising from sale of shares was shown as ‘Long-term Capital gain’ – Assessing Officer, however, brought said amount to tax under head ‘Income from other sources’ – On appeal before Tribunal, Judicial Member, allowed assessee’s claim in light of overwhelming evidences produced by her to prove genuineness of transaction – Accountant Member, however, in view of order passed in case of Baijnath Agarwal v. Asstt. CIT [2010] 40 SOT 475 (Agra)(TM) took a different view
