Assesse being a partnership firm, engaged in the business as dealer in petroleum products who filed its return at Rs.3,00,950/-. Subsequently the case was selected for limited scrutiny.
In the case abovementioned ITAT have held that there is no need to purchase residential property in own name by any assesseee for the purpose of claim of capital gain u/s 54F.
ITAT Kolkata remands case of Prakash Bhalotia to AO for fresh order, citing lack of opportunity to present evidence in AY 2017–18 case of unexplained cash deposits.
Raj Kumar Agarwal HUF’s appeal against penalty under Section 271(1)(c) dismissed as withdrawn under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.
Assessment was completed at income of Rs.1,23,18,612/- against the returned income of Rs.3,76,740/- on account of unexplained cash deposited in the bank accounts amounting to Rs.1,19,41,872/-.
ITAT Kolkata held that CIT(A) rightly deleted addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act since identity and creditworthiness of share purchased duly explained. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Kolkata held that the surcharge is leviable only when the amount of income tax is computed where the total income exceeds Rs.50 lakhs. Here, surcharge is not leviable since income is less than Rs. 50 Lakhs. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Kolkata held that undisclosed commission income on accommodation entries to be added @0.15% instead of 1%. Accordingly, AO directed to compute the rate the commission @0.15% and not 1%.
ITAT Jaipur held that when the cash found in books are more then physically found no further addition is required to be made in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, addition towards unexplained cash set aside.
ITAT Agra held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) merely because the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by CIT(A), without adjudicating issues arising in the appeal on merits, is not sustainable in the eyes of law keeping in view provisions of Section 250(6).
