Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
The assessee entered into an agreement for sale and made substantial payment for a property in the assessment year (AY) 2013-14. The Assessing Officer (AO) was not convinced with the different versions of sources provided by the assessee for the purchase and made an addition u/s 69 in AY 2014-15. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] rightly decided that the transaction pertained to AY 2013-14 and advised the AO to reopen the assessment for AY 2013-14. However, the advice given by the CIT(A) has only advisory value and cannot be treated as a direction. The CIT(A) erroneously invoked Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii), which was amended effective from AY 2014-15, for the transaction pertaining to AY 2013-14. As per the ruling in M. Syamala Rao's case, the CIT(A) cannot invoke provisions amended with effect from a subsequent assessment year on transactions pertaining to a previous assessment year. Consequently, the additions made by the CIT(A) by invoking Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) were deleted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
The assessee entered into an agreement for sale and made substantial payment for a property in the assessment year (AY) 2013-14. The Assessing Officer (AO) was not convinced with the different versions of sources provided by the assessee for the purchase and made an addition u/s 69 in AY 2014-15. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] rightly decided that the transaction pertained to AY 2013-14 and advised the AO to reopen the assessment for AY 2013-14. However, the advice given by the CIT(A) has only advisory value and cannot be treated as a direction. The CIT(A) erroneously invoked Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii), which was amended effective from AY 2014-15, for the transaction pertaining to AY 2013-14. As per the ruling in M. Syamala Rao's case, the CIT(A) cannot invoke provisions amended with effect from a subsequent assessment year on transactions pertaining to a previous assessment year. Consequently, the additions made by the CIT(A) by invoking Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) were deleted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
