Where income was offered on presumptive basis under section 44AD, there was no need to maintain books of accounts therefore addition made against the vegetable vendor was deleted for failure to substantiate the unexplained cash deposit.
ITAT Jaipur held that delayed payment of employee contribution to PF/ESI as prescribed u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act is beyond the ambit of adjustments to be carried out u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Jaipur held that CIT(Exemption) not justified in denying the registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act as the foundation/ trust duly supplied all the desired information as per the query letter.
ITAT Jaipur held that disallowance of marketing and survey expenditure merely because of non-production of the concerned party whose identity is proved is unsustainable in law.
If the cash sales and receipts were duly supported by relevant bills which were produced in the course of assessment proceedings, addition U/s 68 was unwarranted. Where cash sales transaction was recorded in regular books of accounts, sales were made out of stock-in-trade then no addition U/s 68 could be sustained.
ITAT Jaipur set aside the CIT(A) order as the same being non-speaking and cryptic order which is passed against the principles of natural justice as opportunity to the AO to ascertain the correct fact was not granted.
ITAT held that provisions of sub-section (4) would be applicable in respect of agreement to sell for transfer of an asset which has been executed on or after 1st April, 2013.
ITAT Jaipur held that condonation of delay cannot be granted merely on the basis of sympathy or benevolence. Further, condonation of delay rejected alleging lack of diligence and inaction on the part of the assessee.
Smt. Priyanka Agarwal Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur) Taking into facts and circumstances of the case it is an evident from the show cause notice u/s 274 read with section 271AAB of the Act that the Assessing Officer was not clear i.e whether it is for the clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of […]
AO has clearly conducted the enquiry and revenue did not pin point the error on the part of the assessing officer the order passed after due application of mind cannot be subjected to proceeding u/s. 263 of the Act.
