Where case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on issue of mismatch of sales shown in the audit report vis-à-vis tax return but AO expanded the scope of limited scrutiny by making addition for alleged speculation loss under section 43(5) without taking permission from the concerned Pr.CIT/CIT, order of AO was set aside.
ITO Vs Trilokpati Exim Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) When assessee had allotted shares for consideration other than cash then provisions of section 68 (cash credit) does not apply FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue, pertaining to assessment year 2012-13, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner […]
Jewels Emporium Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) From the record, we found that as on the date of search, the books of account of M/s Jewels Emporium were incomplete and the printouts of cash books as taken by the search team did not reflect the true and correct balance available which is made part of the […]
DCIT Vs Veena Goyal (ITAT Jaipur) As per the provisions of the section 56(2)(vii)(c)(i), any property other than immovable property is transferred for a consideration which is less than the aggregate fair market value of the property by an amount exceeding Rs. 50000/-, the aggregate fair market value of such property as exceeds such consideration […]
Gem Electro Mechanicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) Since there was delay in depositing the aforesaid amount of sales tax, therefore, the assessee was made to deposit interest amounting to Rs. 2,71,826/- on such delayed payment of sales tax amount and Rs. 3,152/-on delayed payment of Excise/Custom Duty & Service Tax. The AO during […]
Nawal Kishore Soni Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) It is evident from entries found in cash book of Ram Kumar Soni and from statement recorded from assessee in course of survey that assessee purchased gold in period of demonetization which was obviously for sale to persons on receiving cash from them as the same is normal […]
The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in purchase of gold?
Mrs. Kamal Murlidhar Mokashi Vs. ITO (ITAT Pune) Capital Gain-Purchased 4 Adjacent Residential Flats- Can Claim Exemption U/S 54F (With Provisions of Section 54F) In this article I will discuss some clarification (with the judgment of a recent case law) regarding the provisions of Section 54F i.e. Exemption from Capital Gain on purchase of Residential […]
ITO Vs. Aravali Prime Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Jaipur) In this case, it is noted that the AO during the course of assessment proceeding made the addition of Rs. 2,63,15,000/- (138500 shares x Rs. 190 per share) on account of share premium received on issue of shares by the assessee company. Thus the AO observed […]
Vishnu Tambi Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur) Under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the authority has been given discretion to levy the penalty in case there is a concealment of particulars of income and also with regard to quantum of penalty. However, it is a basic need of the provisions of law that definite finding is […]
