Assessee had consistently shown the plots as investments in earlier years and that the nature of income could not be determined solely based on the nature of the business for tax audit purposes.
Assessee submitted share valuation report which was not as per rule 11UA but valuation of shares was done as per ‘Adjusted Net Asset Method and as per ‘future earning analysis.
ITAT Jodhpur ruled in favor of Arun Agarwal, allowing exemption under Section 54B for agricultural land sale, emphasizing that partial agricultural use is sufficient.
ITAT Jodhpur condones delay in filing appeal by Punam Kanwar Bhati. Penalty under Section 270A deleted due to procedural lapses and lack of misreporting intent.
ITAT Jodhpur held that if the books of accounts are rejected, and net profit is estimated by application of net profit rate, there cannot be again addition on account of any disallowance based on the same set of books of accounts. Thus, addition u/s. 40(a)(ia) set aside.
ITAT Jodhpur held that addition of income and capital gain tax levied thereon is liable to be set aside as land not situated within the municipal limits of Sardarsahar. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed.
“ITAT Jodhpur rules Bitcoin gains as long-term capital gains (LTCG) and allows Section 54F deduction for AY 2021-22. Read the detailed judgment highlights.”
In view of above facts, we restore this appeal back to the learned Assessing Officer with the direction to the assessee to substantiate the status of the assessee as trust and also eligibility of relevant provisions of Sections 11 and 12 by producing the registration u/s. 12AA of the Act.
Penalty under section 270 A was not leviable as the nature of addition/disallowance were not in the nature of misreporting or misreporting income of assessee and assessee had paid the demand within 30 days and filed the required form no. 68 and that form was procedural in nature.
Naveen Bolia Vs ITO (ITAT Jodhpur) The case of Naveen Bolia Vs ITO, adjudicated by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Jodhpur, revolves around the legality of assessment and the merits of certain additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The appellant, Naveen Bolia, challenged the assessment order on two primary grounds: the legality of […]
