ITAT Jaipur held that as defect notice issued u/s. 139(9) of the Income Tax Act is not in accordance with the law and hence the return of income filed by the assessee should be considered as valid return.
ITAT quashes penalty order under section 271D as it was time-barred. Detailed analysis of Ram Kishan Verma Vs Additional CIT (ITAT Jaipur) case.
ITAT Jaipur dismisses Chiranji Lal Bairwa’s appeal due to non-compliance with ITD notice for determining land value under section 50C of Income Tax Act. Details of the case and the ruling.
Explore case of Manjeet Kaur vs ITO, where a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was contested due to a reasonable cause amid Covid-19. Full ITAT Jaipur order analysis.
ITAT Jaipur restored the matter back to CIT(E) as application for registration u/s. 12AB of the Income Tax Act was rejected solely due to alleged non-genuineness of the activities as charitable nature of activities of assessee not disputed.
ITAT Jaipur held that the assessment order passed by AO after considering the information filed during assessment proceedings cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.
ITAT Jaipur held that provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act is not applicable because the immovable property was purchased/ sold as business property. Further, profit earned was duly reflected in the return of income. Accordingly, demand set aside.
ITAT Jaipur held that penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act not leviable as the assessee is eligible to avail the benefit of presumptive taxation up to Rs. 2 Crores as per section 44D of the Income Tax Act.
In an ex-parte order due to non-attendance, ITAT remits the case of Ravi Prakash Sharma vs. ITO back to the Assessing Officer. Get the full text of the order here.
ITAT Jaipur held that the provision of section 194C of the Income Tax Act is applicable to work and not for purchase made which are liable for VAT. Hence, TDS u/s. 194C is not leviable as payments were made for purchase of material and not for any work contract.
