You are not Logged in

Interesting and Noteworthy Decisions image

image
Where AO had framed the reassessment under section 148 without issuing notice under section 143(2), the reassessment order was invalid because it is mandatory obligation of AO to serve notice by assigning reasons therein with regards to his belief of escaped tax liability before making assessment of any escaped income.

Gaurav Kumar v. ITO

  Section 148   Direct Taxes
Milk chilling and packing service provided by contractors to petitioners are exempted by virtue of Serial No. 24 of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017.

Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation

  Section 9 of CGST Act, 2017   GST
Where AO computed peak credit without taking into account both deposits as well as withdrawal during relevant period for assessment years under consideration, matter was remanded back to AO for re-computing peak credit.

B.A. Moideen Bava v. Dy. CIT

  Section 68   Direct Taxes
Where assessee had discharged his onus by furnishing the necessary details such as a copy of PAN, bank details, etc. in support of identity of the parties and all transactions were carried out through the banking channel, therefore, assessee had discharged the onus regarding the identity of the parties and accordingly addition under section 68 could not be made in the hands of assessee.

Mahipal Ishwarlal Sottany v. ITO

  Section 68   Direct Taxes
Where consequent upon seizure proceedings initiated by concerned respondent authority, assessee never deposited any tax or penalty or bond or security, as required under section 67(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and also failed to comply according to notices/summons issued, petition against seizure order was dismissed.

Ashu Traders Madar Gate v. UOI

  Section 67 of CGST Act, 2017   GST
The fact that provision made at the end was reversed in the beginning of next accounting year showed that there was no income accrued. Mere entries in books of account did not establish accrual of income in the hands of payee and hence there was no liability on assessee-company to deduct merely on the provisions made at year end.

AT & T Communication Services India (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

  Section 40(a)(ia)   Direct Taxes
Where in spite of the assessee being given sufficient opportunities, necessary evidences to establish that the land was agricultural land as per section 2(14)(iii)(b) were not furnished and also the agricultural income was not shown in return of income, then assessee was not justified in claiming exemption from the capital gain tax.

Rajesh Kumar v. Jt. CIT

  Section 10(37)   Direct Taxes
AO had not brought on record any material to show that cash deposited in bank accounts of the creditors belonged to assessee and, was a case of round tripping of unaccounted income of the assessee in the shape of unsecured loans. Whereas assessee had produced confirmations as well as affidavits of loan creditors along with bank account details and returns of income filed by loan creditors. Also, making deposits subsequently less than the withdrawal amount clearly showed that all the loan creditors were having sufficient funds to make deposits in their bank accounts prior to issuing cheques to assessee and therefore, in absence of assessee’s own role in withdrawal and deposits made in bank accounts of loan creditors, addition of loan amount made under section 68 could not be sustained.

Smt. Leela Kothari v. ITO

  Section 68   Direct Taxes
Assessee had only one business undertaking and total turnover of business was equivalent to total turnover of the undertaking as well as export turnover and purchases disallowed by AO related to the same business activity of manufacture and export in respect of which assessee was held eligible for deduction under section 10AA, therefore, deduction under section 10AA had to be allowed on enhanced profits after taking into consideration the disallowance under section 69C in light of accepted legal position by the CBDT. Though Circular No. 37 of 2016, dated 2-11-2016.

Amrapali Exports v. Dy. CIT

  Section 10AA   Direct Taxes
Where the amount was initially parked in the capital gains account and later on, the same was transferred to fixed deposit account and no proof or account detail or statement of account was filed by the assessee showing that fixed deposit was in the capital gain scheme, then the addition was restored to the AO for verification and taking decision afresh about claim of exemption under section 54. Further, mere making of an application for allotment of a house with any Housing Board was not sufficient to claim exemption under section 54.

Dr. Jaya Narayan Naik v. Jt. CIT

  Section 54   Direct Taxes
1 2