AO was justified in making addition under section 68 on account of unexplained cash deposits found in bank account in case having regard to the human probabilities and normal course of human conduct, explanation offered by assessee was not wholesome, credible and verifiable.
According to section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for short the Act), where a return has been furnished under section 139 of the Act, or in response to a notice under section 142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer(AO) or the prescribed income-tax authority, as the case may be, if, considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income
Where assessee, under a bona fide belief that UID kit being a part of computer claimed depreciation at 60%. Tribunal held that disallowance of claim would not result in levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c).
Power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in any immovable property. The power of attorney is a creation of an agency whereby the grantor authorizes the grantee to do acts specified therein, on behalf of grantor, which when executed will be binding on the grantor […]
Gyan Chand Agarwal Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Jaipur) The issue in this ground is whether the sale consideration of the land belonging to Shri Sultan Meena can be taxed in the hands of the assessee, who is admittedly Power of Attorney holder of Shri Sultan Meena. There is no dispute with regard to the fact […]
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – III, Jaipur dated 19.02.2016 for A.Y. 2011- 12 wherein the assessee has challenged the levy penalty of Rs. 1,02,400/- u/s 272A(2)(K) of the Act.
Merely non-appearance of the supplier in absence of any other corroborate evidence cannot be a basis to justify the stand of the Revenue that the transaction of purchase is bogus.
Merely non-appearance of the supplier in absence of any other corroborate evidence cannot be a basis to justify the stand of the Revenue that the transaction of purchase is bogus.
Non-appearance of the supplier in absence of any other corroborate evidence cannot be sole basis to justify the stand of the Revenue that a transaction of purchase is bogus
What has been sold was ancestral agricultural land which belongs to the HUF and it has been brought to tax in the hands of HUF after the death of Sh. Amarchand. There is no partition of HUF and there is no finding of any partition given by the Assessing Officer u/s 171 of the Act.
