Where the exemption claimed under section 11 and 12 has been denied by the Assessing officer, what can be brought to tax is the net income in the hands of the assessee trust and not the gross receipts.
Shri Manoj Dewan Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) We note that though sufficient opportunities were granted by the ld. CIT (A) to the assessees for presenting their cases, however, when the assessee has explained a reasonable cause for not appearing on 20.11.2018 and also filed an application in advance wherein it was stated that the ld. […]
Provisions of section 56(2)(vii) have application to ‘property’ which is in nature of a capital asset of recipient and, thus, when assessee purchased a piece of land as stock-in-trade, the addition made by AO in respect of the purchase of land by invoking provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii), was to be set aside.
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.
