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.
ACIT Vs. Shri Laxmi Narain Agarwal (ITAT Jaipur)- It is contended that the order of the ld. CIT(A) will reveal that no specific defects in the books of account were found by the AO. The assessee’s working site being at remote place, cash payment to labourer through self made vouchers
ACIT Vs. M/s. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. (ITAT Jaipur)- he AO disallowed the payment on the ground that though the amount was paid by the assessee but was not paid within the due date as given under the respective Acts of GPF, CPF and ESI.
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of ITO vs. Alok Mukherjee that where both the parties not performed terms & conditions of the agreement to sale in prescirbed time and prescribed maneeer, it is breach of contract, so it will not be a transfer of property on the date of such agreement.
M/s. Bajrang Wire Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Addl. CIT (ITAT Jaipur) In the present case the matter before the ld. CIT (A) was payment of interest for the A.Y. 2006-07 and also for A.Y. 2008-09. In both the matters, the interest was restricted by the AO to 12%
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of M/s Brothers Pharma Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO that the case laws referred by the CIT (A) are squarely distinguishable on the ground that there was a written off either by the assessee or bilaterally
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of Balbir Singh vs, ACIT that it is not open for the AO to make addition on estimation basis without verifying that said expenses are genuine or not. Mere fact that payments were made in cash on self made vouchers
ITAT Jaipur held in case of ACIT Vs. Smt. Ranjana Johari that if change made in the wooden article which resulted in to a new and different article then it would amount to manufacturing activity. The assessee, Ranjana Johari, had undertaken different activities to shape up
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of ITO vs. Tara Chand Jain that the right in land cannot be equated with the land or building. Therefore, it is concluded that section 50C is applicable to transfer of capital asset only in respect of land or building or both and is not applicable to right in land. In the present case
ITAT Held in ITO vs Tara Chand Jain that the amendment in sec 50C which inculcates word assessable would have prospective effect from the date of its insertion i.e from 01-10-2009 and would not have retrospective effect on the sale of property before 01-10-2009
