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 […]
The issue under consideration is whether the CIT is correct in restricting the disallowance u/s 69C against bogus purchase at rate of 12.5% of the bogus purchases?
DCIT Vs Jugal Kishore Garg (Derewala) (ITAT Jaipur) The ld. CIT(A) observed that it is evident that the surplus being referred to by the Ld. AO is not profit from the projects but the receipts of ‘on money’ credited to the capital accounts of the partners which has been considered in the additional income offered […]
Mukesh Sohanraj Vardhan Vs. ITO (Mumbai ITAT) The ITAT Mumbai has put to rest an important controversy in the case of Mukesh Sohanraj Vardhan vs Income Tax Officer Mumbai decided on 28 August 2020 by holding that the extra consideration received on cancellation of Booking of Flats constitutes a ‘Capital Receipt’ and cannot be taxed as […]
whether assessee is considered as monthly tenant or deemed owner of the premises u/s.27(iiib) read with Section 269UA(f)(i) of the Act and accordingly whether rental income is taxable u/s.22 as ‘income from house property’ or not?
