ITAT Jaipur

Scrutiny proceedings cannot be initiated if notice U/s. 143(2) served after statutory time period

Cameron (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. Vs. Asst. DIT (ITAT Jaipur)

No scrutiny proceedings can be initiated if notice under section 143(2) is not received by assessee within the prescribed period....

Read More

DDT cannot be charged to tax in a different year merely for Mistake of Assessee

M/s Drawmet Wires Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Jaipur)

M/s Drawmet Wires Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) It is settled proposition of law that DDT is chargeable only in the year when it is declared, distributed or paid and not prior to that. In the case on hand the assessee has produced all relevant record to show that the dividend was proposed by […]...

Read More

Power of Attorney Holder cannot be assessed for Capital Gain

Shri Gyan Chand Agarwal Vs. The Addl. CIT (ITAT Jaipur)

Power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in any immovable property. The power of attorney is a creation of an agency whereby the grantor authorizes the grantee to do acts specified therein, on behalf of grantor, which when executed will be binding on the grantor […]...

Read More

Notice under section 143(2) has to be served within stipulated time

According to section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for short the Act), where a return has been furnished under section 139 of the Act, or in response to a notice under section 142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer(AO) or the prescribed income-tax authority, as the case may be, if, considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that...

Read More

Penalty cannot be imposed for delay in TDS return filing for non availability of PAN

Argus Golden Trades India Ltd. Vs. JCIT (ITAT Jaipur)

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A) - III, Jaipur dated 19.02.2016 for A.Y. 2011- 12 wherein the assessee has challenged the levy penalty of Rs. 1,02,400/- u/s 272A(2)(K) of the Act....

Read More

Non-appearance of supplier cannot be the sole basis to terms purchase as bogus

M/s Beauty Tax Vs DCIT, ((ITAT Jaipur)

Non-appearance of the supplier in absence of any other corroborate evidence cannot be sole basis to justify the stand of the Revenue that a transaction of purchase is bogus...

Read More

Sale of Land of HUF after Death of Karta is assessable in HUF’s hand

M/s Amarchand HUF Vs The ITO (ITAT Jaipur)

What has been sold was ancestral agricultural land which belongs to the HUF and it has been brought to tax in the hands of HUF after the death of Sh. Amarchand. There is no partition of HUF and there is no finding of any partition given by the Assessing Officer u/s 171 of the Act....

Read More

Purchase cannot be termed bogus for mere non-appearance of supplier

M/s Beauty Tax Vs DCIT, ((ITAT Jaipur)

Merely non-appearance of the supplier in absence of any other corroborate evidence cannot be a basis to justify the stand of the Revenue that the transaction of purchase is bogus. ...

Read More

Purchase cannot be held bogus for Mere Non-Appearance of Supplier

M/s Beauty Tax Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur)

Merely non-appearance of the supplier in absence of any other corroborate evidence cannot be a basis to justify the stand of the Revenue that the transaction of purchase is bogus....

Read More

No LTC / Tax benefit on Foreign Tours provided to staff, TDS deductible

State Bank of India Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur)

The provisions of the Act are in relation to the travel concession/assistance given for proceeding on leave to any place in India and the said concession is thus exempt only where the employee has utilized the travel concession for travel within India. Further under Rule 2B of the Income Tax Rules the condition for allowing exemption unde...

Read More
Page 1 of 812345...Last »

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,533)
Company Law (3,482)
Custom Duty (6,692)
DGFT (3,522)
Excise Duty (4,055)
Fema / RBI (3,301)
Finance (3,516)
Income Tax (25,480)
SEBI (2,763)
Service Tax (3,289)