ACIT vs. Rahul Pancholi (ITAT Jaipur) AO find decline in gross profit rate in current year in comparison to previous year. On examination of books of account AO found discrepancies in accounts. He made additions after rejecting books of account u/s 145 (3).
Satish Agarwal vs. DCIT- ITAT Jaipur placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan HC in the case of CIT Vs. Inani Marbles Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 316 ITR 125 (Raj) wherein the court held that in absence of any change in the factual position normally the profit rate declared and accepted in the preceding year constitute a good basis of working out the profits.
In the case of ACIT Vs. M/s Supersonic Turner Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Bench of ITAT have held that where ESI/PF received from the employees was deposited late but before the due date of filing return of income u/s 139 (1) the amount cannot be disallowed u/s 43B or 36 (1) (va).
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of Nirmal Kumar Bardia vs. DCIT that argument of the assessee that the assessee had disclosed salary received from RMC Gems Thai Co. Ltd., Bangkok voluntarily has not substantiated with any evidence.
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of ACIT vs. Shri Johari Lal Sodhani that the CIT (A) had given various reasons of retraction and also has considered the evidence for not honouring the statement made under section 132(4).
In case of Shri Rajendra Pathak Vs. ACIT Jaipur Bench of ITAT have held that sale proceeds cannot be clubbed in the hands of the assessee as capital asset/capital gain arises/accrued outside India. Assessee got shares on the basis of work performance by his employe in London.
In the case of DCIT Vs. M/s. Soni Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur bench of ITAT have held that that in case of share capital, the creditworthiness along with genuineness of transaction, identity of person is also required to be proved by the assessee.
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of ACIT vs. M/s Public Rose Shiksha Samiti that on verification of the total receipt mentioned by the Assessing Officer , there was a transaction of sale of land for Rs. 47,90,000/-. The Hon’ble Madras High Court has considered the issue of annual receipts
In the case of ACE India Medical Systems Vs. ACIT Jaipur Bench of ITAT held that from the bare reading of the section 43 (5) (d) it is prima facie clear that Section 43(5)(d) is for trading in derivatives not trading of shares.
In the case of Brahamanand Agarwal, Thekhedar Vs. DCIT Jaipur Bench of ITAT have held that when net profit is estimated by AO by rejecting the book result U/s 145(3) of the Act, no separate addition can be made on account of cash creditor.
