Gyan Chand Agarwal Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Jaipur) The issue in this ground is whether the sale consideration of the land belonging to Shri Sultan Meena can be taxed in the hands of the assessee, who is admittedly Power of Attorney holder of Shri Sultan Meena. There is no dispute with regard to the fact […]
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – III, Jaipur dated 19.02.2016 for A.Y. 2011- 12 wherein the assessee has challenged the levy penalty of Rs. 1,02,400/- u/s 272A(2)(K) of the Act.
Merely non-appearance of the supplier in absence of any other corroborate evidence cannot be a basis to justify the stand of the Revenue that the transaction of purchase is bogus.
Merely non-appearance of the supplier in absence of any other corroborate evidence cannot be a basis to justify the stand of the Revenue that the transaction of purchase is bogus.
Non-appearance of the supplier in absence of any other corroborate evidence cannot be sole basis to justify the stand of the Revenue that a transaction of purchase is bogus
What has been sold was ancestral agricultural land which belongs to the HUF and it has been brought to tax in the hands of HUF after the death of Sh. Amarchand. There is no partition of HUF and there is no finding of any partition given by the Assessing Officer u/s 171 of the Act.
The provisions of the Act are in relation to the travel concession/assistance given for proceeding on leave to any place in India and the said concession is thus exempt only where the employee has utilized the travel concession for travel within India. Further under Rule 2B of the Income Tax Rules the condition for allowing exemption under section 10(5) of the Act are laid down.
ITAT held that amount surrendered by way of investment in the unrecorded stock of rice has to be brought to tax under the head business income. It Further held that Only real income can be taxed, hypothetical income cannot be taxed nor income can be taxed in vacuum.
Assessee society is generating surplus year after year is not the deciding factor to determine whether it is eligible for exemption under section 11 of the Act. And on this ground alone, the exemption claimed by the assessee society under section 11 can not be denied. What is relevant to examine is whether the surplus so generated is ploughed back in furtherance of its educational objectives and related activities or not.
It is an admitted position that theft/ fraud had indeed taken place in the assessee company and the AO had nowhere doubted the fact of fraud but he disallowed the claim of the assessee for the reason that the assessee could not establish the fact of fraud like non- production of copy of FIR and not taking any legal action against the employee who was involved in this activity of fraud.
