In this case AO has considered the full value consideration U/s 50C as against the actual sale consideration declared by the assessee. The increased of value by the AO in the full value consideration does not amount either concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
Clause (iii) of section 2(14) specifically excludes agricultural land of the description given therein from capital asset which means that agricultural land was outside 8 Km. of municipal limits. Accordingly, agricultural land purchased by assessee was not a capital asset and, therefore, section 56(2) (vii)(b) was not applicable to assessee’s case.
It is held that transaction within the family and close relative are covered by the proviso to section 56(2)(viii)(c) and there is no application of the said section for taxing the income under the head ‘Income from other sources’. The provisions of s. 56(2)(viii)(c)(ii) shall not apply in case of money or any property received from any close relative.
DCIT Vs JLC Electromet Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Jaipur) In the present case, undisputed facts are that the commission has been paid to various nonresident entities in respect of sales affected by the assessee outside of India, the services have been rendered outside of India and the payments have been made outside of India. In light […]
Bansal Propbuild Private Limited Vs CIT (ITAT Jaipur) The Bench observed that the assessee is engaged in agriculture produce and the same was sold during the year under consideration. However the AO has not treated as agriculture income. The assessee has filed application under Section 154 of the Act on 10.01.2019 mentioning therein that the […]
The assessee filed its return of income on 15.10.2019 which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act whereby an adjustment was made on account of disallowance of claim of deduction with respect to employees’ contribution towards PF and ESIC deposited belatedly.
Jhodinda Bhojpura Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) It is well-settled that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct and as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ananthraman Veera singhaiah & Co.Vs. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 457, the finding in the assessment proceedings cannot be regarded as […]
Suresh Kumar Agarwal Vs JDIT (ITAT Jaipur) ITAT perused materials available& observed that learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the order by the AO, Where the assessee admitted his delay in reply for the notice and delay in complying the summons. Assessee submitted that he was a small business contractor and he was not aware […]
Addition cannot be made on the basis of mere confidential information submitted before Settlement Commission without incriminating material found in search and seizure to support addition.
It not the entire sales consideration which is to be brought to tax but only the profit attributable on the total unrecorded sales consideration which alone can be subject to income tax
