ITAT Jaipur held that cost of improvement cannot be rejected on the reason that building plan approval, property tax, etc. not provided as no building approval is required for construction area of 870 Sq. Fts and property tax was not leviable on the residential house property. Cost of improvement allowable as valuation report submitted.
ITAT Jaipur held that amount paid towards settling the property dispute is absolutely necessary to affect the transfer and accordingly the same is allowed as expenditure covered by provision of section 48 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Jaipur held that once penal provisions under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act are applied in case of search addition, invoking provision of section 115BBE is not in accordance with law and accordingly unsustainable.
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.
