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.
Murlidhar Deendayal Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) In respect of undisclosed sales only profit can be added when purchases are recorded but sales is undisclosed. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: (i) CIT v/s President Industries (2000) 158 CTR 372 (Guj) (ii) Bansal Rice Mills v/s ITO (2001)72 TTJ 1 (Chd) […]
Rajasthan Gau Seva Sangh Vs CIT (ITAT Jaipur) It is pertinent to note that when the assessee is maintaining various Gaushalas then production of milk is bound to happen and dealing in purchase and sale of milk & milk products as well as cattle feed is nothing but the activity in furtherance of the objects […]
The issue under consideration is whether the re-opening of assessement u/s 147 is justified in law?
The question that arises for consideration is where there is no new material brought on record by the Assessing subsequent to completion of original proceedings u/s 143(3) and where the matter was duly examined during the original assessment proceedings, whether the Assessing officer can still acquire jurisdiction by exercising powers u/s 147 of the Act.
The issue under consideration is whether the conversion of case from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny prior to receipt of approval from Pr. CIT is justified in law?
If the A.O. has taken up the issue of determining fair market value of the property in question as on 01/4/1981 without converting the limited scrutiny to comprehensive scrutiny by taking the prior approval of the competent authority then the said order passed by the A.O. will be nullity as beyond his jurisdiction.
AO has obtained the necessary approval from the Competent Authority for conversion of the limited scrutiny to comprehensive scrutiny. Accordingly, the issue which is taken up by the AO in the proceedings under section 154 is illegal and void being beyond his jurisdiction to frame the limited scrutiny assessment.
K.K. Construction Co. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) Conclusion: Dis allowance under section 40A(3) could not be made as identity of persons from whom purchases had been made was established; source of cash payments was clearly identifiable in form of withdrawals from assessee’s bank accounts and the said details were submitted before AO, thus, the genuineness […]
