In ITO vs. Late Shri Chandi Ram, ITAT Jaipur upheld CIT(A)’s decision, recognizing arbitration and interest receipts from contracts executed in AY 1989-90 & 1990-91 as business income, taxable in AY 2012-13. Based on the jurisdictional High Court’s ruling, a net profit rate of 8.5% was applied, aligning with Supreme Court’s precedent on interest from delayed contract payments.
ITAT Jaipur in Yogendra Khandelwal Vs ACIT, mandates re-adjudication for penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) without adequate hearing.
ITAT Jaipur held that referring impugned domestic transaction to TPO u/s 92CA is invalid in view of omission of clause (i) of section 92BA vide Finance Act, 2017.
ITAT Jaipur held that 100% exemption u/s. 10(10AA) denied as employees of Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) and Nationalized Banks or other Institutions which are classified as ‘State’ cannot be assumed the status of Central Government and State Government employees.
ITAT Jaipur reinforces section 54F’s applicability, highlighting the distinction between actual sale consideration and stamp duty value for capital gains exemption, affirming the principle of real consideration over deemed value for investment in new assets.
ITAT Jaipur held that denial of Foreign Tax Credit merely because Form 67 was filed after the due date of filing the return under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act is unjustified and untenable in law.
ITAT Jaipur held that penalty u/s 271B not leviable for mere delay of one day as such delay didn’t have any deliberate intention. The delay if any is on account the reasons on the technical letches on the portal and the same is venial in nature.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition by way of adjustment and intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act on debatable and controversial issue is beyond the scope of Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Jaipur held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable as addition made on account of meager amount and on account of difference of opinion only.
ITAT Jaipur held that non-compliance due to receipt of notice in SPAM folder is sufficient cause shown for the delay. Accordingly, delay of 223 days in filing of an appeal condoned.
