DCIT Vs Saurabh Mittal (ITAT Jaipur) In absence of any contrary fact, the mere reliance by the Assessing Officer on the report of Investigation Wing, Kolkata is not sufficient to establish the fact that the transaction is bogus. The finding of the Assessing Officer is based merely on the suspicion and surmises without any tangible […]
ACIT Vs M/s Om Metal Infraproject Ltd. (ITAT Jaipur) Clause (iic) inserted in Explanation 1 to section 115JB by the Finance Act, 2015 is remedial and curative in nature as it was brought in the statute to provide similar benefit to the member of the AOP which was earlier applicable to the partner of the […]
Sonu Khandelwal Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Section 150(1) provides exception to the limitation provided U/s 149 for issuing notice U/s 148. Therefore, Section 150 of the Act can be pressed into service in a particular case of reopening based on the directions or giving effect to the order of the appellate authority only when the time […]
Where assessee had not filed return within the time prescribed U/s 139(1), deduction u/s 80IA was not allowable to assessee as there was clear violation of section 80AC which clearly provided that deduction would not be allowed unless return was furnished on or before due date specified under section 139(1).
M/s. OMIL JSC (JV) Kameng Kota. Vs Dy. CIT (ITAT Jaipur) The limited issue under consideration relates to whether interest on income tax refund is eligible for deduction under section 80IE of the Act. The contention of the assessee is that it has only one business undertaking and the only business of the undertaking is […]
Addition under section 68 on account of share application money received from non-resident was not justified as money brought into India by non-residents for investment or other purposes was not liable to Indian Income Tax.
Pramod Kumar Lodha Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Decision of the AO holding the transaction as bogus and denying the claim of long term capital gain under section 10(38) of the Act is based on suspicion without any material evidence to controvert or disprove the evidence produced by the assessee. The enquiry conducted by the ITO […]
Denial of assessee’s claim under section 10(38) on the basis of suspicion without any cogent material to show that the assessee had brought back its own unaccounted income in the shape of long-term capital gain was not justified.
The appellant contented that penalty under section 271(1)(b) can be imposed by the AO if he is satisfied that any person failed to comply with the notice under section 142(1) or under section 143(2) or directions issued under section 142(2A) of the Act. Therefore, no penalty can be levied under section 271(1)(b) for non compliance of notice issued under section 148.
Addition made in the income u/s 69B on account of failure of assessee to substantiate the excess stock found at his premises was not justified as the excess stock came on account of sale price taken by Department and since inception of assessee-firm, it was valuing inventory on average cost method/weighted cost price which was verifiable from the statement of accounts appended to Return of Income thus, a method of accounting / Valuation adopted by the taxpayer consistently and regularly could not be discarded by the departmental authorities.
