The appellant contented that penalty under section 271(1)(b) can be imposed by the AO if he is satisfied that any person failed to comply with the notice under section 142(1) or under section 143(2) or directions issued under section 142(2A) of the Act. Therefore, no penalty can be levied under section 271(1)(b) for non compliance of notice issued under section 148.
Addition made in the income u/s 69B on account of failure of assessee to substantiate the excess stock found at his premises was not justified as the excess stock came on account of sale price taken by Department and since inception of assessee-firm, it was valuing inventory on average cost method/weighted cost price which was verifiable from the statement of accounts appended to Return of Income thus, a method of accounting / Valuation adopted by the taxpayer consistently and regularly could not be discarded by the departmental authorities.
Sh. Naresh Kumar Luhadia Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur) Full picture of how travelling expenses and conveyance expenses were being incurred by assessee was brought to the notice of AO in writing but AO, instead of appreciating facts and circumstances of the case, just made simple observation that assessee’s reply was very general in nature. There […]
Jagdish Narayan Sharma Vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur) A perusal of sections 246 to 251 of the Act makes it clear that any questions arising out of the assessment orders in an appeal by the assessee can be possible and wide powers are given to the appellate authority, but these powers are circumscribed by the assessment […]
The assessee is an Individual and engaged in the business of trading in mobile and accessories including SIM card, pre-paid card etc. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee has shown the payment of commission of Rs. 16,41,989/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act without deduction of TDS
Smt. Vidhya Poonia Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) AO at the time of initiation of proceedings under section 148 has to form the belief on the basis of the material available which is sufficient for coming to the conclusion that prima facie income assessable to tax has escaped assessment, therefore, filing of return with wrong jurisdiction could […]
These are the three appeals filed by the assessee against the respective orders of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Jaipur dated 05/09/2017 for the A.Y. 2011-12 wherein the assessee has challenged the action of the Assessing Officer in levying the penalty U/s 271(1)(c),
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of ld. AO in disallowing the claim o f expenditure of Rs. 1,71,67,000/- by applying section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please may be granted by deleting the entire addition Rs. 1,71,67,000/- imposed under section 40A(3)
Once the assessee retracts from the statement given during survey under section 133A then it is the duty of AO to establish beyond any doubt the issues on which the addition in income needs to be made and no addition can be sustained only on the basis of such statement recorded during the survey.
Capital gain to be assessed in the hands of all the legal heirs who have inherited the land and also shared the sale consideration. Cost of acquisition has to be determined by considering relevant provisions of the Act as well as the fair market value of the land as on 01.04.1981.
