Books of account not audited at the time of filing of income-tax return is not a criteria to deny carry forward of losses.
DCIT v. Brahmos Aerospace (Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd. – [2022] 137 taxmann.com 340 (Cochin-Trib.)
Whether where a discretion is conferred upon a quasi-judicial authority whose decision has civil consequences, the word ‘may’ which denotes discretion should be construed to mean a command – Yes: HC., Whether therefore, the statute makes it mandatory for an assessee to be provided an opportunity of personal hearing in course of Faceless assessment – Yes; HC
Virasat Foundation v. Addl./Joint/Deputy/ACIT/ITO/National Faceless Assessment Centre, ITD, 2022-TIOL-622-HC-DEL-IT
CBDT notifies Countries in which ‘Original Fund’ should be resident to claim Sec 47(viiac) / (viiad) exemption.
Notification no. 46/2022, dated 27-4-2022
SLP dismissed against impugned order of HC holding that where assessee did not disclose about sale of land and windmill in return of income and it was only when AO, on basis of information received from Registration Department, issued notice u/s 143(2), the assessee for the first time stated that due to inadvertence, it did not disclose particulars relating to Capital Gains, it was a clear case of levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
Gangotri Textiles Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax – [2022] 137 taxmann.com 198 (SC)
Notice u/s 148, if issued on or after 1-4-2021, even for past years, should comply with new provisions / time limits & the procedure u/s 148A.
Mohammed Mustafa v. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(3)(1) – [2022] 137 taxmann.com 396 (Karnataka)
For time-barring of digitally issued reassessment notice, date on which they were issued by email sent is important and not the date of receipt by assessee.
Malavika Enterprises v. Central Board of Direct Taxes – [2022] 137 taxmann.com 398 (Mad)