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deposits cannot be a sole basis for rejecting the explanation of the Appellant as there was no material that amount so withdrawn had been utilized somewhere else.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.
Devendra Kumar Jhanwar Vs ITO (ITAT Jodhpur) The impugned addition stem from the fact that an amount of Rs.8 Lacs in cash (in old currency notes of denomination of Rs.500 & Rs.1000 as demonetized by government on 08/11/2016) was found from the possession of the assessee on 18/11/2016 at arrival terminal of Maharana Pratap Airport, […]
ACIT Vs M/s. Mayo College General Council (ITAT Jodhpur) The deduction of depreciation for Rs.300.37 Lacs as claimed by the assessee was denied by Ld. AO on the reasoning that cost of fixed asset is an application of income and therefore further deduction of depreciation tantamount to double deduction. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed depreciation by […]
whether the Mid Day Meal supply to the poor students of the schools as per the programme of State Government is considered as commercial activity?
The issue under consideration is whether sale of agricultural land after conversion taxing under capital gain or under business income? ITAT direct the A.O. to treat the property on sale of land as capital gains and given the benefit of exemption claimed by the assessee U/s 54F of the Act.
Since transaction between assessee and truck owners was a liability which assessee had to pay arising from trade transaction and same could not be added under section 68.
The claim of exemption under section 11 could not be denied to assessee society on the ground that the audit report was not filed online along with the return as the requirement of law that the assessee shall have its account audited, had been complied with within the time prescribed by the statute.
