Smt. Yannaben Anilbhai Jethani Vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot) We find that the issue for our consideration is, whether penalty initiated and levied under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act, without clearly specifying particular default relates concealment of wealth and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid in law ? The contention of ...

Anilbhai Chunilal Bhayani Vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot) ITAT finds that both AO and CIT (A) have not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee about the usage of the properties for the business purpose, and estimation of the rental value of the properties. The ld.AO rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground […]...

Woodman Trading Co Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (Osd) (ITAT Rajkot) If an assessee having sufficient interest free funds, in the form of capital reserves and other funds without interest bearing from relatives and friends not related to business, to cover funds given interest free or utilized other than for business purposes, no disallowance is warrant...

AO was not justified in treating assessee's transaction of purchase of agricultural land from his wife as colorable device to avoid the legitimate payment of tax on mere difference between purchase price declared by assessee vis-a-vis Jantri Value as assessee had discharged his primary onus by furnishing the necessary details to justify t...

Patel Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Rajkot) The issue under consideration is whether contractors performing the work in the nature of a developer-cum-contractor are eligible to claim deduction u/s 80-IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? ITAT states that even after the amendment by the Finance Act, 2007 and the Finance Act, 2009, th...

The issue under consideration is whether the assessee is correct in stating that cognizance taken under section 153A of the Act is illegal at the end of the A.O.?...

DCIT Vs Late Shri Pravinsinh N Zala (ITAT Rajkot) Whether the amendment brought under the provisions of section 153C of the Act, where the word ‘belong’ was replaced with the word ‘pertain’ is applicable for the year under consideration. It was only on 1st June, 2015 when the amended provisions came into force that the […]...

It is a settled principle of law that where addition to assessee’s income is made on estimate basis penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed....

As per the circular no. 723 dated 19.09.1995 states that where the provisions of Section 172 are to apply, the provisions of Section 194C and 195 relating to tax deduction at source are not applicable....

Merely the payment of investigation charges to the chartered accountant firm was made by the bank on behalf of the assessee did not mean that the transaction was covered under the provisions of section 194A read with section 2(28A). As such the assessee was liable to deduct the TDS under section 194J and thus, assessee was not eligible fo...