This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-II, Jaipur dated 3.12.2013 for A.Y 2009-10 wherein the Revenue has taken following grounds of appeal
AO was not justified to make addition solely on the basis of the statement of Shri Hanuman Yadav when there was a registered sale deed and more particularly when the maker of statement has not challenged the sale deed before any court of law.
It is natural in Indian culture that if the members of the family are competent to work in the business of the family, naturally they will be required to pay the minimum / the same compensation/benefit/incentive as other employees are paid.
Section 50C of the Income Tax act, 1961(herein referred to as the Act) has been inserted in the Act by the Finance Act, 2002, w.e.f. 1-4-2003. This section is causing hardships, in many cases, to the assessees since its inception. Many appeals are arising in respect of this section.
The case of assessee was reopened and the assessment under section 144 read with section 147 of the IT Act, 1961. While framing the assessment, the AO restricted the deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(c)(i) of the Act and also confirmed the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) consequent to deposit
The Jaipur bench of ITAT in the above cited case held that the assessee is only expected to produce the documentary evidences regarding the transaction and identity of the persons from whom it has accepted the deposits.
The ITAT Bench Jaipur in the above cited case held that as per CBDT circular 6/2016 dated 29.02.2016 , if the assessee has treated the securities as investment and not as stock in trade earlier years,the revenue is not permitted to take a contrary view in the present year to claim that the security is stock in trade
Rajasthan Patrikia Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT- ITAT Jaipur held that newspapers and periodicals are distinct commodity than the paper, printing ink and other ingredients used therein. Since a new commercial product comes into existence
The ITO Vs Shri Radhey Shyam Agarwal (ITAT Jaipur) Once, there is an impending dispute between assessee and M/s. Laxmi Carpet Enterprises then it cannot be assumed that liability for payment has ceased
ITAT Jaipur held in DCIT Vs. M/s Ashiana Ispat Ltd that if the facts and circumstances were same in the assesse’s own case of earlier years then, disallowance could not be made if the same was allowed in the earlier years by any appellate authority.
