ITAT held that invocation of provision of 263 to correct section under which penalty is leviable or not is beyond the power vested under section 263 of Income Tax Act,
Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT/DCIT (ITAT Jaipur) It is noted from the record that the assessee company is engaged in the business of Hotel Industries and Toll Tax Collection. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee company had debited the interest expenses amounting to Rs. 4,23,15,400/-. During the […]
Merely granting of stay does not mean that prosecution launched by Department has come to an end and appeal cannot be dismissed on account of low tax effect,
Rule 17A of Income Tax Rules, 1962 clearly explained that self certified copies of documents are sufficient for the claiming exemption under section 12AA
Shri Narendra Kumar Khandelwal Prop. M/s Ranjana Textiles Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Interest free funds available: The law is well settled that where assessee is having mixed i.e. interest free/interest bearing funds both, but where the interest free funds are larger than the interest free advances/utilization than there will a presumption that the interest free […]
No notice whatsoever was issued to the legal representative/s of the assessee before undertaking the reassessment proceedings. Thus, the impugned re-assessment and the assessment order having been passed against the dead assessee, is invalid and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Section 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the AO; it is only when an order is erroneous as also prejudicial to Revenue’s interest, that the provision will be attracted.
Allen Career Institute Vs JCIT (ITAT Jaipur) Disallowance of Rs.2,01,515/- on account of New Electricity Connection charges. In Ground of Appeal disallowance of Rs. 2,01,515/- made relating to the claim on account of electric connection charges, is agitated. The AO noted that the assessee had claimed expenditure of Rs.2,37,076/- for new electricity connection charges. When […]
Urmila Vs Income Tax Officer (Rajasthan High Court) the very substantial point which has been raised by the petitioners that one single cash deposit of Rs.34,01,000/- has been taken as two different transactions, which according to the petitioners is factually incorrect and not borne out from any of the record including transactions made as entered […]
Explore Mahaveer Prasad Agarwal vs. DCIT case at ITAT Jaipur, analyzing discretionary penalties under sections 271AAB and 271 of the Income Tax Act.
