Dive deep into case of DCIT Vs Suman Solanki, as ITAT Jaipur discusses its authority to rectify mistakes, amendments from Finance Act, 2021, and interpretation of Section 254(2).
ITAT Jaipur held that invocation of revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act justified in absence of proper inquiry by AO which renders the assessment order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
ITAT Jaipur held that disallowance of expenditure by invoking rectification provisions of section 154 of the Income Tax Act is unjustifiable as the same is not mistake apparent on record.
ITAT Jaipur held that in absence of a valid satisfaction note the notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act 1961 is bad in law. Resultantly the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act is void ab initio and liable to be quashed.
Read about the ITAT Jaipur decision in Ajay Kumar Jain vs ITO case, allowing 25% reduction in DLC Rate due to land use restrictions. Section 50C addition deleted. Analysis and conclusion included
The assessee company was engaged in business of trading and manufacturing of Bakery items. It filed its return on 12.03.2022 declaring total income of Rs. 14,22,15,640/-. During the year under consideration, assessee has made payment of Rs. 15,22,68,970/- on 16.02.2021 to M/s Everfoods Asia Pvt. Ltd.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards short term capital loss treating it as bogus unsustainable as transaction of purchase and sale of shares done through banking channel and STT duly paid thereon.
ITAT Jaipur lifts penalty for Mukesh Pathaks late ITR filing, deeming it a bona fide mistake with no revenue loss as proper tax was already paid.
ITAT Jaipur held that imposition of penalty under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as income does not fall in the category of undisclosed income.
ITAT Jaipur held that the difference in the closing stock is emanating from the difference in the working for the preceding years and that such difference cannot be attributed for the year under consideration. Accordingly, order not erroneous and jurisdiction of section 263 not invocable.
