Analysis of Purushottam Sharma vs. DCIT (ITAT Jodhpur) case. Is income from LIC commission considered business income or other sources? Explore the legal arguments and conclusions.
Explore the case of Sh. Kuldeep Kumar Vs ITO, where the onus shifted to the IT Department when affidavits verified cash deposit sources. Full ITAT Jodhpur order analysis
Khadi Grammodhyog Prathisthan Vs Asst. Director of Income CPC (ITAT Jodhpur) The case of Khadi Grammodhyog Prathisthan Vs Asst. Director of Income CPC (ITAT Jodhpur) revolves around the denial of current year losses by treating a revised tax return as an original return. This appeal arises from an order dated 14.02.2023, issued by the National […]
ITAT Jodhpur held that disallowance of interest which is not at all received by the assessee is unsustainable and accordingly, the disallowance is vacated.
ITAT Jodhpur held that merely by transferring the reserve created out of the tax paid profit subsequently transferred to capital account of the firm is not a mistake apparent on record and cannot be rectified under the guise of provision of section 154 of the Act
ITAT Jodhpur upholds CIT(A)’s decision, negating the AO’s addition of Rs. 1.62 crore under Section 69C for Shri Prahalad Rai Rathi. The judgment clarifies all transactions were through banking, dismissing the alleged unexplained expenditure and unsecured loans as baseless.
Precondition of applicability of S. 14Ahas not been fulfilled in the present case in as much the law never contemplates to apply S. 14A in relation to a taxable income as in the present case
Explore the pivotal case of Devkripa Textile Mills vs ACIT (ITAT Jodhpur) where the court addressed disallowances on director’s remuneration, depreciation, and expenses, offering insights for tax compliance.
ITAT Jodhpur held that any issue which was considered by AO in the assessment order and such order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of justice, then, such order would be open for revision under section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
Penalty order did not specify the charge & penalty was imposed purely on the basis of estimation of income so not valid
