ITAT Jaipur held In case of ACIT vs. Shri M.R. Seetharam that it is mandatory that Assessing Officer should furnish the copy of the reasons recorded for initiation of re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 exactly as it is recorded by the Assessing Officer.
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of Seema Singh Beniwal vs. DCIT that there is no restriction that what percentage of the size of flat should be used for residential purposes under the Income Tax Act. It is clarified by the CBDT that purchase of plot of land is a part of residential house for claiming of deduction U/s 54F.
Smt. Sumitra Devi Agarwal Vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur)- The AO has questioned the genuineness of the liability and in absence of the requisite confirmation, has held the same to be a bogus liability. Where the liability itself has been held to be a bogus liability, where is the question of remission or cessation thereof.
ACIT vs. Rahul Pancholi (ITAT Jaipur) AO find decline in gross profit rate in current year in comparison to previous year. On examination of books of account AO found discrepancies in accounts. He made additions after rejecting books of account u/s 145 (3).
Satish Agarwal vs. DCIT- ITAT Jaipur placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan HC in the case of CIT Vs. Inani Marbles Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 316 ITR 125 (Raj) wherein the court held that in absence of any change in the factual position normally the profit rate declared and accepted in the preceding year constitute a good basis of working out the profits.
In the case of ACIT Vs. M/s Supersonic Turner Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Bench of ITAT have held that where ESI/PF received from the employees was deposited late but before the due date of filing return of income u/s 139 (1) the amount cannot be disallowed u/s 43B or 36 (1) (va).
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of Nirmal Kumar Bardia vs. DCIT that argument of the assessee that the assessee had disclosed salary received from RMC Gems Thai Co. Ltd., Bangkok voluntarily has not substantiated with any evidence.
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of ACIT vs. Shri Johari Lal Sodhani that the CIT (A) had given various reasons of retraction and also has considered the evidence for not honouring the statement made under section 132(4).
In case of Shri Rajendra Pathak Vs. ACIT Jaipur Bench of ITAT have held that sale proceeds cannot be clubbed in the hands of the assessee as capital asset/capital gain arises/accrued outside India. Assessee got shares on the basis of work performance by his employe in London.
In the case of DCIT Vs. M/s. Soni Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur bench of ITAT have held that that in case of share capital, the creditworthiness along with genuineness of transaction, identity of person is also required to be proved by the assessee.
