×Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India
These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.
All these four appeals are filed by the assessee which are directed against four separate orders of ld. CIT (A)-7, Bangalore all dated 24.07.2018 for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2015-16.
2. The grounds raised by the assessee for Assessment Year 2012-13 in ITA No. 2373/Bang/2018 are as under.
“1. That the order of the authorities below in so far as it is against the assessee is against the law, facts, circumstances, natural justice, equity all other known principles of law.
2. That the total income and total tax computed is hereby disputed.
3. The authorities below erred in not providing sufficient and adequate opportunity to the appellant as required under law, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, hence the order requires to be cancelled.
4. That the notice, initiation and all subsequent proceedings u/s 148 is bad in law, is without jurisdiction, barred by law and requires to be cancelled.
5. The notice u/s 148 and service thereof is bad in law and the reassessment requires to be cancelled.
6. The conditions precedent to justify the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act being absent, the reopening of the assessment is bad in law and the reassessment requires to be cancelled.
7. That the authorities below erred in framing order under section 144 of the Act without following the prescribed procedure under law.
8. That the order u/s 144 r.w.s.147 of the Act is bad in law, as the appellant had disclosed the material facts fully and truly necessary for assessment and there is no new or fresh information or evidence warranting reopening of the assessment.
9. That the entire reassessment proceedings violates the procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court in 259 ITR 19 for 148 proceedings.
10.The reassessment proceedings is on a change of opinion on the same set of facts without there being any new evidence or information which is not permitted under law.
11.The reasons / findings of the authorities below are unsustainable and untenable in law as the same is contrary to the facts emerging from the record.
12. That the authorities below erred in relying on sworn statements provided along with show cause notice dt.13.01.2017 of persons namely Shri Amit Saraogi, Shri AmarchandRatanlalRander, Shri Sajjan Kedia, Shri Soumen Sen, Shri Jagdish Prasad Purojit and Shri Dhruv Narayan Jha without providing opportunity of cross examination in spite of request by the assessee.
13. That the authorities below erred in not providing complete details before calling for objections from the assessee.
14. That the authorities below erred in relying on irrelevant material while ignoring the relevant material and further erred in making addition solely on third party statement without any corroboration.
15. That the authorities below erred in making addition of Rs.16,22,07,420/-u/s 68 of the Act.
16. That the authorities below erred in treating the capital gains declared by the assessee from transfer of shares of M/s.Blue Circle Services Ltd of Rs.16,22,06,666/-u/s 68 of the IT Act.
17. That the authorities below erred in treating the capital gains declared by the assessee from transfer of shares of M/s.Fact Enterprises Ltd of Rs.5,109/-u/s 68 of the IT Act.
18. That the authorities below erred in resorting to section 68 of the Act.
19. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of shares in M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd of Rs. 16,22,06,666/-.
20. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of shares in M/s. Fact Enterprises Ltd of Rs.5,l09/-.
21. That the authorities below erred in making addition of Rs.48,66,222/ u/s 69C of the Act.
22. That the authorities below erred in charging 3% of capital gains as the commission paid u/s 69C of the Act.
23. The appellant denies the liabilities for interest u/s 234B of the Act. Further prays that the interest if any should be levied only on returned income.
24. The appellant denies the liability for interest u/s 234D of the Act. The levy of interest u/s 234D is against the express provisions of law.
25. No opportunity has been given before levy of interest u/s 234B and 234D of the Act.
26. Without prejudice to the appellant's right of seeking waiver before appropriate authority, the appellant begs for consequential relief in the levy of interest u/s 234Band 234D of the Act.