ITAT Jaipur held that benefit of deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act unavailable on bogus donation on adoption of unfair means.
ITAT Jaipur held that rejection of books of account on the basis of insignificant defects is unjustified as Before invoking provisions of section 145(3) AO has to bring on record material the basis on which he has arrived at the conclusion with regard to correctness/ completeness of the accounts.
ITAT Jaipur held that since the intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not reflected in the online system, there cannot remain any consequent grievances on account of the said intimation.
ITAT Jaipur held that as the assessee is not driven primarily by desire or motive to earn profits but to do charity through advancement of an object of general public utility hence proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act is therefore not applicable and accordingly assessee is entitled to benefits of section 11 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Jaipur held that filing of Form 67, for claiming Foreign Tax Credit, is a procedural requirement and violation of procedural norms doesn’t extinguish the substantive right of claiming the credit of Foreign Tax.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition solely on the basis of PEN drive found during the search proceedings, without checking the veracity/ reliability of the data recorded in the PEN drive, is unsustainable in law.
Kanhaiya Lal Lalwani Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) It is noted that the cost of acquisition of plot as per the assessee was Rs. 555/- purchased on 16-04-1999 and thereafter addition/ improvement of Rs.3,41,000/- was made. In my view, if these benefits were allowed to the assessee then in that eventuality the capital gain arose on […]
Reetesh Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Bench observed that both the lower authorities had dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte for want of non-appearance during the course of hearing. In view of the request of the ld. AR of the assessee, the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the AO […]
We are of the view that proper service of notice is vital for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(b). In this regard, we draw reliance in case of CIT vs. Har Parshad (1990) 49 Taxman 168 (P&H).
Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT/DCIT (ITAT Jaipur) It is noted from the record that the assessee company is engaged in the business of Hotel Industries and Toll Tax Collection. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee company had debited the interest expenses amounting to Rs. 4,23,15,400/-. During the […]
