ITAT Jaipur held that assessment which are already completed after making proper inquiries cannot be allowed to again reframed merely based on the search without any fresh evidence. Addition unsustainable
Rule 17A of Income Tax Rules, 1962 clearly explained that self certified copies of documents are sufficient for the claiming exemption under section 12AA
Shri Narendra Kumar Khandelwal Prop. M/s Ranjana Textiles Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Interest free funds available: The law is well settled that where assessee is having mixed i.e. interest free/interest bearing funds both, but where the interest free funds are larger than the interest free advances/utilization than there will a presumption that the interest free […]
Brijesh Sharma Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur) During the Assessment assessee submitted to the AO vide letter dated 12.11.2014 that the assessee had purchased a plot of land situated in Jaipur for disclosed consideration of Rs. 5,21,000/- which was paid by cheque. The AO issued summon u/s 131(2) the seller, Smt. Choti Devi. In her statement […]
Instantly, we are confronted with a situation in which the revision was initiated on the basis of the AO sending a proposal to the CIT and not on the CIT suo motu calling for and examining the record of the assessment proceedings and thereafter considering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
ITAT condone delay of 9 years in filing appeal on account of inordinate delay of about 9 years as assessee was imprisoned to Jail
Recording of reasons before initiation of reassessment proceedings & communication thereof to assessee is sine qua non that goes to root of matter
Held that factors like high status, family tradition, deduction on account of purity and deduction towards Streedhan should be considered before making addition on account of unexplained investment. Accordingly, addition deleted.
Once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and purchase of the business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself) the Revenue could not justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assume the role to decide how much was reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case.
Section 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the AO; it is only when an order is erroneous as also prejudicial to Revenue’s interest, that the provision will be attracted.
