AO has obtained the necessary approval from the Competent Authority for conversion of the limited scrutiny to comprehensive scrutiny. Accordingly, the issue which is taken up by the AO in the proceedings under section 154 is illegal and void being beyond his jurisdiction to frame the limited scrutiny assessment.
K.K. Construction Co. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) Conclusion: Dis allowance under section 40A(3) could not be made as identity of persons from whom purchases had been made was established; source of cash payments was clearly identifiable in form of withdrawals from assessee’s bank accounts and the said details were submitted before AO, thus, the genuineness […]
Concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee has to be in the income tax return filed by it. Even if some discrepancies were found during the survey resulting in surrender of income by the assessee, once the assessee has declared the said income in the return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act, then the penalty cannot be levied on the surmises, conjectures and possibilities that the assessee would not have disclosed the income but for survey.
Rajendra Shringi Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur) The issue under consideration is whether the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) is justified in law? ITAT states that no doubt, the discrepancies were found during the survey. This has yielded income from the assessee in the form of amount surrendered by the assessee. Presently, ITAT are not concerned […]
Ld. CIT acted mechanically in order to discharge his statutory obligation when he merely wrote on the format Yes, I am satisfied. In the case in hand, the Id. CIT has even not written any affirmative sentence or word but has just signed against the column which was pre-typed Yes.
ITAT Jaipur ruling on Amrapali Exports Vs DCIT case. Can deduction u/s 10AA be claimed on enhanced profits after disallowance u/s 69C? Read now.
The issue under consideration is whether the interest expense can be disallowed u/s 57(iii) on the ground that rate of interest paid was higher that rate of interest received in own case?
ITAT states that, once the source of deposit is explained as prior withdrawal from the bank of more than the amount deposited subsequently then the creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction cannot be doubted.
The issue under consideration is whether denial of the exemption under section 11/12 due to various discrepancies found in verification of unsecured loans is justified in law?
Shri Ram Mohan Rawat Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Reasons recorded by the AO for formation of belief that income assessable to tax has escaped assessment are based on two counts. One, the assessee has made bogus purchases and the second, that the purchases are not verifiable as the as the assessee has not filed the […]
