Dhanraj Chhipa Vs PCIT (ITAT Jodhpur) CIT cannot invoke his powers of revision under section 263 if the Assessing Officer has conducted enquiries and applied his mind and has taken a possible view of the matter. If there was any enquiry and a possible view is taken, it would not give occasion to the Commissioner […]
ITAT Jodhpur held that penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act not imposable for non-compliance of section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Jodhpur held that it is settled legal position that registration cannot be cancelled from retrospective effect. Hence, cancellation of registration of charitable trust with retrospective effect is invalid.
Late Smt. Kanta Chandak Vs ITO (ITAT Jodhpur) On merits, the ld. AR submitted that the issue raked up by Ld PCIT relate to the deduction claimed by these assessees u/s 54 of the Act, which was allowed by the AO in the original assessment proceedings. He submitted that these assessees could not furnish proper […]
Akbar Mohammad Vs ACIT (ITAT Jodhpur) In the present cases, it is not in dispute that the assessee deposited the contribution of PF & ESI belatedly in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. However, the said deposits were made prior to filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Of course, it […]
Gogad Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Jodhpur) dmittedly and undisputedly, the assessee chose to be un-represented before the NFAC on as many as three occasions. However, the fact does remain that the NFAC did not adjudicate on the merits of the case but dismissed the assessee’s appeal before it on the ground that there […]
Ridhi Sidhi Mills (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Jodhpur) In the present cases, it is not in dispute that the assessees deposited the contribution of PF & ESI belated in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, however, the said deposits were made prior to filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the […]
Ashok Kumar Banthia Vs DCIT (ITAT Jodhpur) It is also an admitted fact that the affidavit filed by Shri Ashok Todi, which is at page No. 13 of the paper book who was director of M/s Lux Industries Ltd. had categorically admitted that on 19/04/2011, the assessee was carrying amount of Rs. 25.00 lacs in […]
Addition on account of deposits of employees’ contribution of ESI and PF prior to the filing of return of income u/s 139(1) could not be disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) if the same was prior to the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 1.4.2021 vide Explanation 5.
Jodhpur Bench held that mere time gap between withdrawals and deposits cannot be a sole basis for rejecting the explanation of the Appellant as there was no material that amount so withdrawn had been utilized somewhere else. The Court believed that the explanation by the Appellant was reasonable and therefore, directed that the addition so made must be deleted.
