In view of the above mentioned parameters, ITAT found that the appellant has not been able to discharge even the basic onus to prove the genuineness of cash credits in his bank accounts. Therefore, in their considered view when the existence of the source of such cash deposits is not proven then the A.0 is fully justified in treating such cash deposits as unexplained and liable to be taxed.
Shri Devasamparambil Hassainar Kutty Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) Revenue has not disputed the fact that the FDRs taken by the assessee are for the purpose of furnishing the security/guarantee to the companies those have awarded the contract to the assessee. Therefore, these FDRs were furnished as a performance guarantee by the assessee. Once the FDRs […]
Shri Ram Narayan Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Conclusion: Since assessee purchased land through an agreement to sale which was unregistered and the payment was made in cash, therefore, in absence of sale deed, the unregistered agreement would not transfer any title to assessee of the agricultural land, accordingly, the claim of deduction under section 54B […]
Shri Harish Chand Narang Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) The sum and substance of above decision is that the nature of specification of charge by the A.O. at the stage of initiation of penalty proceedings at the time of issue of notice U/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and at the time of […]
M/s Shree Krishna Vatika Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur) From the record we also found that the assessee had attended the proceedings under the bonafide belief that the losses as claimed (which was same in both returns filed u/s 139(1) and 153A) were duly being assessed by the AO, and this intention of […]
Where the exemption claimed under section 11 and 12 has been denied by the Assessing officer, what can be brought to tax is the net income in the hands of the assessee trust and not the gross receipts.
Shri Manoj Dewan Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) We note that though sufficient opportunities were granted by the ld. CIT (A) to the assessees for presenting their cases, however, when the assessee has explained a reasonable cause for not appearing on 20.11.2018 and also filed an application in advance wherein it was stated that the ld. […]
Provisions of section 56(2)(vii) have application to ‘property’ which is in nature of a capital asset of recipient and, thus, when assessee purchased a piece of land as stock-in-trade, the addition made by AO in respect of the purchase of land by invoking provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii), was to be set aside.
Deduction U/s 54F was available to assessee in respect of full value of consideration received and not on the value taken by the Sub-Registrar for the purposes of stamp duty.
Penalty under section 271AAB could not be imposed on assessee as old jewellery found in the locker of assessee and family members could not be treated as undisclosed for the purpose of levying penalty.
