ITAT Jaipur held in case of ACIT Vs. Smt. Ranjana Johari that if change made in the wooden article which resulted in to a new and different article then it would amount to manufacturing activity. The assessee, Ranjana Johari, had undertaken different activities to shape up
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of ITO vs. Tara Chand Jain that the right in land cannot be equated with the land or building. Therefore, it is concluded that section 50C is applicable to transfer of capital asset only in respect of land or building or both and is not applicable to right in land. In the present case
ITAT Held in ITO vs Tara Chand Jain that the amendment in sec 50C which inculcates word assessable would have prospective effect from the date of its insertion i.e from 01-10-2009 and would not have retrospective effect on the sale of property before 01-10-2009
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.
