Chordia Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur) The issue under consideration is whether the action taken by the AO u/s 147 r.w.s 148 is justified in law? The case of assessee was originally selected for scrutiny and a detailed questionnarie was issued alongwith notice u/s 142(1). The AO asked specific queries with regard to […]
Delay in filing declarations in Form 27C being a technical breach was thus condoned and the same were being admitted as there was substantial compliance with the requirement of filing the declarations.
The issue under consideration is whether the re-opening of assessment u/s 147 by AO is justified in law? The reopening of the assessment by the AO is without application of mind and simply going by the information received as per AIR Data. Hence the reopening of the assessment is quashed being invalid.
CIT (A) upheld the reopening of the assessment by recording the reasons on incorrect facts. Hence in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the reopening of the assessment by the AO is without application of mind and simply going by the information received as per AIR Data. Hence the reopening of the assessment is quashed being invalid.
ITO Vs Shri Habib Khan (ITAT Jaipur) The exception 10(e) of of Circular no. 03 of 2018 dated 20-08.2018 which has been referred by the ld DR relates to cases where addition is based on information received from external sources in the nature of law enforcement agencies such as CBI/ ED/ DRI/ SFIO/ Directorate General […]
Assessee-sole proprietor was not eligible for a tax deduction for his own education expenses as the same could not be treated as business expenses and the point in time when the expenditure was incurred, the business of the assessee was not set up.
Interest paid on the borrowing made for acquiring Capital Asset (House Property) is part of the cost of acquisition and therefore eligible for indexation and deduction from the Sale Consideration for computation of capital gains.
Addition made u/s 69 was liable to be quashed as the order passed by AO would be nullity as he couldn’t convert limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny in absence of requisite approval from the competent authority.
CBDT Instruction No. 1916 allowing the specific quantity as reasonable and need not to be explained, does not include the jewellery which is otherwise explained by proof of documents of acquisition as well as declared/ recorded in the books of account of the assessee.
The moot point discussed here is very important where in, the allowed quantity as per the Instruction no 1916 is applicable in case where the assessee does not explain the source of the jewellery and the presumptive quantity is allowed. Such quantity is a Blanket Allowance.
