person working in software industry cannot be termed as ‘Wages’. In our view there is no distinction sought to be made in the provisions of Sec.80JJAA of the Act
The issue under consideration is whether the denial of assessee’s application u/s 264 on the ground that assessee not having filed revised return within prescribed time is justified in law?
ITAT states that, once the source of deposit is explained as prior withdrawal from the bank of more than the amount deposited subsequently then the creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction cannot be doubted.
The appeal has been filed against the addition of Rs. 11,12,211/- made by the learned AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(Appeals) treating the said amount as not commission but as salary income without allowing deduction u/s. 37 of the IT. Act, 1961, the expenses incurred to earn the said commission. But in fact, the entire receipt is commission and not salary as it would be clear going though the fact of the case.
On perusal of the impugned orders would indicate that the ld.CIT(A) has simply concurred with the AO without formulating specific points and taking note of details available before the Id.CIT(A). In a way, the appeals were dismissed in summary manner. This act is amounting to miscarriage of justice. This exercise of power at the end of the ld.CIT(A) is not in coherence with the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act, therefore, ITAT set aside all these orders and restore all the issues in these three assessment years to the file of the Id.CIT(A) for deciding them on merit.
Whether AO is correct in considering the gift received by the assessee as unexplained gift and made addition u/s 68 when the Gift was received through banking channels?
The issue under consideration is whether AO can issue notice under section 148 for re-assessment without issuing notice u/s 143(2)?
Shri Kailash Chand Soni Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) The issue under consideration is whether the addition on account of disallowance of interest expenses which are in accordance the provisions of section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is justified in law? In the present case, the assessee has taken unsecured loans from various parties […]
Whether the AO is correct in disallowing expenses incurred on developing and maintaining land in connection with real estate activity?
The assessee before us is a HUF. During the relevant previous year, the assessee sold three properties. In the income tax return filed by the assessee, however, only the capital gains on sale of 1/2 of these properties were shown. When the Assessing Officer probed this apparent discrepancy, it was explained that these properties were purchased by Shri Pranayakumar Shodhan
