ITAT Jaipur held that non-compliance inspite of repeated notices/ summons has led to gross negligence on the part of the assessee and accordingly matter restored back and cost of Rs. 2,000/- imposed for negligent attitude during income tax proceedings.
ITAT Jaipur held that capital gain on sale of land as covered under the provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act is to be assessed separately.
ITAT Jaipur held that revenue has simply disallowed the expenditure in view of CBDT Circular no. 05/2012 dated 01.08.2012 without establishing the violation thereof. Accordingly, disallowance merely on presumption and assumption is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Jaipur held that where no books of account are maintained, penalty should be imposed for non-maintenance of books of account u/s 271A of the Income Tax Act. However, in such circumstances imposing penalty u/s. 271B for not getting books of accounts audited is not justifiable.
ITAT Jaipur held that disallowance of expenses per se cannot mean that the assessee has furnished incorrect particulars of income. Accordingly, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable.
ITAT Jaipur held that cost of improvement cannot be rejected on the reason that building plan approval, property tax, etc. not provided as no building approval is required for construction area of 870 Sq. Fts and property tax was not leviable on the residential house property. Cost of improvement allowable as valuation report submitted.
ITAT Jaipur held that amount paid towards settling the property dispute is absolutely necessary to affect the transfer and accordingly the same is allowed as expenditure covered by provision of section 48 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Jaipur held that once penal provisions under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act are applied in case of search addition, invoking provision of section 115BBE is not in accordance with law and accordingly unsustainable.
Where income was offered on presumptive basis under section 44AD, there was no need to maintain books of accounts therefore addition made against the vegetable vendor was deleted for failure to substantiate the unexplained cash deposit.
ITAT Jaipur held that delayed payment of employee contribution to PF/ESI as prescribed u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act is beyond the ambit of adjustments to be carried out u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act.
