Explore the case of Ranjit D. Rathod vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot) where penalty proceedings were contested due to assessment discrepancies. Detailed analysis and conclusions provided.
Explore the case of Hasmukhrai A. Jobanputra vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot), addressing differences in cash balances. Detailed analysis of additions, penalties, and conclusions provided.
In our considered view only a percentage of profit embedded in such amount of contractual receipts can be brought to tax. In this regard we find support and guidance from the order of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. President Industries reported in 258 ITR 654 where it was directed to make the addition only to the extent of gross profit of undisclosed business receipts.
Punabhai G. Pardava Vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot) Assessee contended that the disallowance should be restricted to the tune of 30% of the rent paid under the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) read with section 194-I of Income Tax Act. The amendment was brought by the Finance Act (No. 2) 2014 effective from 1-4-2015 whereas the year […]
Sagar Navinchandra Chande Vs I.T.O (ITAT Rajkot) Admittedly, there was cash aggregating to Rs. 11,54,350/- deposited in the bank account of the assessee which was treated as income from undisclosed sources by the lower authorities. The assessee before the leaned CIT-A explained the amount of cash deposit represent amount deposited by the customer to whom […]
Ajaybhai I Gogia Vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot) From the fact of the case ITAT observed that there are conflicting judicial precedents on the issue under consideration and therefore, it may be inferred that the issue before us is one in which two views are possible. Further, we note that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has […]
Merely because one of the clauses of trust deed of assessee trust provided that trust could carry on other businesses as decided by trustees, it would not per se disentitle trust from being considered for registration under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act.
ITAT held that where loans and advances are given in normal course of business and transaction in question benefits both payer and payee companies, provisions of section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked.
Smt. Ashaba Rajendrasinh Vs CIT (ITAT Rajkot) Ld. CIT(A) while rejecting the claim of the assessee observed that the assessee was mandatorily required to file the return of income for the year under consideration which he has failed to do. In that view of the matter the claim of deduction under section 54 has been […]
DCIT Vs Indranil Sanjaybhai Rajyaguru (ITAT Rjakot) It is an undisputed fact that when the initial payment of Rs. 12.15 crores has been made for purchase of the new asset that too more than the amount of capital gain to the tune of Rs. 2.90 crores before the due date of filing of the return […]
