The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in purchase of gold?
ITO Vs. Aravali Prime Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Jaipur) In this case, it is noted that the AO during the course of assessment proceeding made the addition of Rs. 2,63,15,000/- (138500 shares x Rs. 190 per share) on account of share premium received on issue of shares by the assessee company. Thus the AO observed […]
Vishnu Tambi Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur) Under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the authority has been given discretion to levy the penalty in case there is a concealment of particulars of income and also with regard to quantum of penalty. However, it is a basic need of the provisions of law that definite finding is […]
DCIT Vs Jugal Kishore Garg (Derewala) (ITAT Jaipur) The ld. CIT(A) observed that it is evident that the surplus being referred to by the Ld. AO is not profit from the projects but the receipts of ‘on money’ credited to the capital accounts of the partners which has been considered in the additional income offered […]
Agencies Rajasthan Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Jaipur) Invocation of Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 to initiate Penalty proceeding not sustainable when addition itself deleted by ITAT Brief facts of the case are that assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 30-12-2017 by the AO and thus the AO made the […]
Satish Kumar Garg Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur) ITAT held that misplacing of CIT(A) order by regular tax consultant is not deliberated delay on part of assessee and it should be condoned. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 31 days. In this regard, the ld. […]
M/s. Kalya Awas Vikas (P). Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) Commercial expediency must be decided from businessman’s point of view — Even expenditure incurred voluntarily on the ground of commercial expediency and in order indirectly to facilitate the carrying on of the business would be deductible under this section. The question whether it was necessary […]
The issue under consideration is whether CIT(exemption) is correct in rejecting the claim of the assessee u/s 10(23C) who is mainly engaged in education facilities?
Addition made merely and solely on the basis of search statement recorded under section 132(4) without any corroborative evidence was not sustainable in law, moreover when confession made was subsequently retracted.
Vijay Kumar Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) At the outset, we note that this Tribunal has taken a consistent view that the turnover in respect of derivative transactions has to be computed by taking the total sum of positive and negative outcome of the transactions instead of the total amount of transaction. Accordingly, when the […]
