Deduction U/s 54F was available to assessee in respect of full value of consideration received and not on the value taken by the Sub-Registrar for the purposes of stamp duty.
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.
Since the approval granted by Pr. CIT to AO for reopening of assessment was clearly without application of mind and was not as per the mandate of the provision of section 151, therefore, notice issued u/s 148 on the basis of such approval and consequent assessment made on the basis of such notice were bad in law and deserved to be quashed.
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 […]
By virtue of clause (iic) in Explanation to section 115JB by the Finance Act, 2015 share of profit received from AOP could not be added while computing book profit under section 115JB.
ACIT Vs Ms Arihant Trading Co. Pahari (ITAT Jaipur) On perusal of sub-section (6) of section 194C, it is clear that all that is required for non-deduction of TDS on payment to the transporter is that the latter furnishes his PAN number to the person responsible for paying or crediting the amount to him. The […]
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 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.
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.
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.
