Shri Digamber Jain Bees Panthi Ajmeri Amnay Panchayat Bada Dhada Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) When the income of the assessee has been assessed under the head ‘Income from other sources’ and there is no provision U/s 56 to 58 of the Act to make a disallowance U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act prior to the amendment […]...

Shri Devendra Agarwal Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) As regards the maintainability of the appeal for want of e-filing, we note that the ld. CIT(A) except giving the reasons in the impugned order did not raise this defect by issuing any notice or otherwise for rectification of the same on the part of the assessee. Though […]...

A mere suspicion that given the nature of expenses, it is likely that incurrence of such expenditure is for non-business purposes, in our view, cannot be a basis for making the addition in the hands of the assessee....

M/s. ASK Partners Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) The interest paid by the firm and claimed as deduction is simultaneously susceptible to tax in the hands of its respective partners in the same manner. In the same vain, the firm is merely a compendium of its partners and its partners do not have separate legal personalities under […]...

Where there is a delay in completion of statutory audit, there exist a reasonable cause for the delay in completion of tax audit and issuance of tax audit report. ...

Once assessee had undisputedly not filed the return of income U/s 139(1) then AO was well within his powers and jurisdiction to issue a notice U/s 142(1) requiring assessee to furnish return of income in the prescribed form and verified in prescribed manner, therefore, the notice issued u/s 142(1) was well within the framework of procedur...

Penalty under section 271AAB could not be imposed on assessee as old jewellery found in the locker of assessee and family members could not be treated as undisclosed for the purpose of levying penalty....

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be levied as assessee had proved that there was a reasonable cause for making the wrong claim under section 54 instead of section 54F....

Conclusion: AO was directed to wait  in respect of tax ability of interest income received from the insurance company on MACT claim till the Supreme Court pronounce a judgement in Sharda Pareek v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & another as the same issue was pending before the Court....

Where assessee had not filed return within the time prescribed U/s 139(1), deduction u/s 80IA was not allowable to assessee as there was clear violation of section 80AC which clearly provided that deduction would not be allowed unless return was furnished on or before due date specified under section 139(1)....