feed2js_ck = true;

document.write('<div class="rss-box">');
document.write('<ul class="rss-items">');
document.write('<li class="rss-item"><a class="rss-item" href="https://itatonline.org/digest/karan-kothari-jewellers-p-ltd-v-state-of-west-bengal-2023-292-taxman-177-cal-hc/" target="_self">Karan Kothari Jewellers (P.) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal (2023) 292 Taxman 177 (Cal.)(HC)</a><br />');
document.write('Revision application was filed challenging the proceedings before the Magistrate Court. The complaint was filed by Principal Director of Income-tax (Inv.) filed a complaint against assessee for offences under sections 277A and 278B. Warrant of arrest was issued against assessee. Court held that  a senior officer of income-tax department was complainant, there would be no requirement of compliance with section 202 of Cr PC-Assessee is  an artificial person and not a natural person, warrant of arrest could not be issued. ');
document.write('</li>');
document.write('<li class="rss-item"><a class="rss-item" href="https://itatonline.org/digest/sharmila-vikram-mahurkar-v-acit-2023-292-taxman-461-guj-hc/" target="_self">Sharmila Vikram Mahurkar v. ACIT (2023) 292 Taxman 461 (Guj.)(HC)</a><br />');
document.write('Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was issued, requesting assessee to appear within 24 hours. As the assessee could not reply the  Assessing Officer passed the penalty order. On writ allowing the petition the Court held that  it was practicably impossible to appear in person within 24 hours, assessee sent a letter addressed to revenue pointing out such practical difficulty. On facts, since show-cause notice issued gave less than 24 hours to assessee to appear, such shorter period of less than 24 hours could be termed as a pure and simple breach of principle of natural justice. Accordingly the order was quashed. Assessing Officer was directed  to give an opportunity to the assessee before passing the penalty order. AY. 2010-11)');
document.write('</li>');
document.write('<li class="rss-item"><a class="rss-item" href="https://itatonline.org/digest/cit-v-c-aryama-sundaram-2023-292-taxman-71-sc-editorial-c-aryama-sundaram-v-cit-2018-407-itr-1-258-taxman-10-madhc/" target="_self">CIT v. C. Aryama Sundaram (2023) 292 Taxman 71 (SC) Editorial : C. Aryama Sundaram v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 1/ 258 Taxman 10 (Mad)(HC)</a><br />');
document.write('High Court  held that not only cost of construction of new property incurred after sale of old property would be eligible for exemption under section 54(1), but also cost of land on which new property was constructed, even if such land had been purchased three years prior to sale of old property. SLP of revenue  is  dismissed, since tax amount involved in instant case was less than Rs. 2 crores, in view of Circular no. 17 of 2019, dated 8-8-2019. (AY. 2010-11)');
document.write('</li>');
document.write('<li class="rss-item"><a class="rss-item" href="https://itatonline.org/digest/pcit-v-gunja-samabay-krishi-unnayan-samity-ltd-2023-292-taxman-46-cal-hc/" target="_self">PCIT v. Gunja Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. (2023) 292 Taxman 46 (Cal.)(HC)</a><br />');
document.write('  Assessee  earned interest on deposits of its surplus funds with banks and Government securities and claimed deduction under 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Assessing Officer allowed  the claim. On  revision   PCIT held that interest from surplus funds invested in deposits with banks and Government securities  is assessable under the head income from other sources under section 56 which did not qualify for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i)of the Act. Tribunal held that   the  amount deposited in bank by a society was not due to its members and it was not liability to its members and,  interest earned from such deposits in bank was eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. On appeal by the Revenue the High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal and also observed that since Principle Commissioner had not carried out any enquiry on his own and had just invoked revision and set aside assessment and remanded it back to Assessing Officer to pass fresh assessment order on issue of claim of deduction under section 80P, invocation of revision under section 263 was unjustified. (AY. 2016-17)');
document.write('</li>');
document.write('<li class="rss-item"><a class="rss-item" href="https://itatonline.org/digest/pcit-v-rachana-todi-smt-2023-292-taxman-30-cal-hc/" target="_self">PCIT v. Rachana Todi (Smt.) (2023) 292 Taxman 30 (Cal.)(HC)</a><br />');
document.write('Assessing Officer passed assessment order after considering submission of assessee with respect to details of sale of property, details of agricultural land and calculation of capital gain including exemption claimed.  Principal Commissioner  revised the order u on  the ground that assessee claimed exemption under section 54B, however, no agricultural income was accounted for in its return for relevant assessment year he held that LTCG claimed on sale of land was to be added back to income of assessee.  Tribunal quashed revisionary proceedings on ground that no claim was made by assessee under section 54B in return of income as well as in computation of income which formed part of documentary evidences submitted before Principal Commissioner. On appeal by the Revenue the court held that  since Principal Commissioner did not record any satisfaction based on correct and verifiable facts, Tribunal was justified in holding that exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 was erroneous. (AY. 2016-17)');
document.write('</li>');
document.write('</ul></div>');