Section 145(3) couldn’t be invoked without identifying specific defects in the books of accounts and that mere suspicion of increased cash sales was not sufficient to make an addition under Section 68.
Explore the ITAT Jaipur decision in Mujmmeel Vs ACIT, examining Section 263 order invoking unexplained investments and its implications on tax assessments.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unsecured loan is untenable since loans accepted were repaid in the same year and all the transactions were carried out through banking channels. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Jaipur remands Jai Prakash Sharma’s case for fresh hearing after CIT(A) added ₹12,06,189 as undisclosed income due to non-compliance in earlier proceedings.
ITAT Jaipur remands EFY Technologies case to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to lack of reasonable opportunity during initial assessment.
ITAT Jaipur held that rejection of application in Form 10AB for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act alleging violation of FCRA Act without specifying the relevant provision is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, matter remanded back to CIT(E).
Assessee was not liable to deduct TDS under section 194H as relationship between e-commerce platform and assessee was not of an agency but that of two independent parties on principal to principal basis.
Registration u/s 12AB was rejected on the ground of non-registration in Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 and further, on account of non-genuineness of activities. Furthe grant of 80G was also denied on the abovementioned grounds.
Analysis of ITAT Jaipur’s decision in Shiv Vegpro Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT, addressing Section 263, delay condonation, and tax assessment disputes for AY 2017-18.
Detailed analysis of the ITAT Jaipur decision in Dinesh Kumar Chaurasia Vs ACIT on unexplained investments, Section 263 jurisdiction, and procedural lapses.
