On hearing arguments from the both parties ITAT find some force in the arguments of the assessee. It is an admitted fact that the two concerns namely M/s. Ashoka Builders and Developers and Ashoka Engineering Co. are not related parties.
The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance in both years, primarily on the basis that the genuineness of the loans had not been established, and therefore, the interest paid on such loans could not be allowed.
AO observed that a perusal of the books of account (specifically cash book) of the companies, revealed that an amount of Rs.75 lacs and Rs.25 lacs respectively were given by both companies on imprest account to the assessee.
Petitioner engaged in manufacturing of Viscose Filament Yarn and allied chemicals and transferred the same to various depots/godowns /warehouses in different states upon payment of GST.
ITAT Pune held that addition towards short term capital gain based on unregistered agreement cannot be sustained since revenue has not brought any evidence on record that possession of property is actually handed over to the purchaser.
Gujarat High Court held that issuance of notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act in the name of deceased person is not sustainable since petitioner already registered legal heir. Thus, notice and order thereof quashed and set aside.
Post completion of assessment, information was received from DDIT(Inv.) Unit-5(2), Mumbai that the share of Gemstone Investment Ltd. was a penny stock and assessee was a beneficiary from trading of the above shares.
ITAT Jaipur upholds reassessment in Akshat Loyalka vs ITO but sends Rs. 12.3L cash deposit issue (Sec 69A) back to CIT(A) for fresh review of evidence.
ITAT Jaipur sets aside penalty under Section 271(1)(c) against Pradeep Garg, citing defective notice and lack of independent evidence from the department.
ITAT Jaipur recalls ex-parte order in Kamla Devi vs ITO, citing natural justice violation and remanding case to AO for fresh adjudication on merits.
