ITAT Jaipur held that there was short gap between three notices issued as say the opportunities granted hence it a fit case were one more opportunity should be granted in the proceedings before CIT(A), to enable the assessee to represent his appeals.
ITAT Jaipur held that with regard to the issue of registration u/s. 12AB of the Income Tax Act, the assessee require one more opportunity to represent the correct fact and produce the registration certificate under Rajasthan Public Trust Act.
ITAT Jaipur held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) holding it to be barred by limitation unjustified as CIT(A) failed to consider that appeal was filed in physical form and filing of appeal is not delayed.
ITAT Jaipur rules in favor of Hitkari Vidyalaya Sahkari Shiksha Samiti Ltd, allowing 80P deduction on interest income from cooperative banks for AY 2017-18 & 2020-21.
ITAT Jaipur condoned delay of 108 days in filing of an appeal, however, imposed cost of Rs. 8,000/- to be deposited in ‘Prime Minister Relief Fund’ (PMRF) as the appellant was not diligent enough to timely file an appeal.
Notice under section 148 was issued upon assessee by AO for reassessing the cash deposit as undisclosed income, following approval from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT).
ITAT Jaipur held that notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act and order thereon issued in the name of Dead individual is null and void. Accordingly, the impugned notice and order held as void-ab-initio.
When an assessee voluntarily discloses income and the assessment is based on this disclosure without any changes, imposing a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is unjustified.
Explore the detailed analysis of ITAT Jaipur’s judgment in Sunil Chablani Vs Circle (Intl. Tax) case. Key issues include jurisdiction, assessment errors, and procedural flaws.
Penalties under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed based on estimated additions without concrete evidence of concealment or inaccurate particulars of income.
