The Presbyterian Churc Co. Operating Credit & Thrift Society Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Section 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction cannot be denied without specifying how the claim of the assessee is not correctly claimed & for motioning status as AOP
Jaipur ITAT directs CIT(A) in Zila Parisad Vs ACIT to permit taxpayer to file a revised appeal memo for correction of error in mentioning assessment year in Form No. 35
ITAT Jaipur held that assessee failed to get its books of accounts audited based on a reasonable cause. Accordingly, penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act for failure to get books of account audited not leviable as assessee reasonable cause shown.
Explore the detailed analysis of the penalty imposed on Jhalawar Kendriya Sahakari Bank Ltd. by ITAT Jaipur in the case against ADIT (I&CI) for the assessment year 2019-20.
Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Jaipur) ITAT Quashes Section 263 proceeding which were merely based on audit objections and lacked an independent assessment
ITAT Jaipurs decision on reassessment and unexplained income in Geeta Devi Sharma vs ITO Ward 6(4) highlights key aspects of income tax law application.
ITAT Jaipur quashes PCIT’s revision under Section 263, upholding the AO’s decisions on sales promotion expenses after detailed inquiries.
In the case of Raj Auto Wheels (P) Ltd vs ACIT, ITAT Jaipur meticulously analyzed additions based on customer advances and sales deferment, emphasizing legal principles and fair assessment. Tribunal’s rulings underscore the importance of genuine transactions and consistent legal application in tax assessments.
The issue involved the contention that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) should not be made if the payee has already paid taxes. Noteworthy payees included public limited companies such as Maruti Udhyog Ltd., and Non-Banking Finance Corporations like Sundaram Finance, AU Finance, and Mahindra & Mahindra Finance.
Tribunal concluded that the enhancement of the sale amount and the application of a higher GP rate of 3.25% lacked justification. The resultant addition of Rs. 2,26,41,521/- was deleted. However, to cover possible income leakage, an ad hoc addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- was allowed.
