Income Tax Judgment of SC, HC and ITAT

  • Dec
  • 18
  • 2014

Capital Gains on sale of TDR received as additional FSI under D. C. Regulations is not chargeable to tax

We have heard both sides at great length and with their assistance, we have perused the order passed by the Tribunal and that of the Commissioner and the Assessing Officer.  The Assessing Officer has noted the basic facts and about which there is no dispute.  What has been argued before the Assessing Officer is that […]

Read the Full Article

  • Dec
  • 18
  • 2014

Entire amount of deposit in bank cannot be treated as unexplained

CA Prarthana Jalan Hon’ble Bench Of Agra ITAT has in the case of ITO v/s Rajeev Kumar Gupta has held that entire amount of deposit in the bank account can not be treated as unexplained when there are withdrawals also. The facts of the case are as under:-

Read the Full Article

  • Dec
  • 17
  • 2014

S. 194H TDS not applicable on Charges for use of Swipe Machine paid to banks

Assessee was engaged in the business of trading in readymade garments. A letter was received from the Assessing Officer, TDS Circle Mumbai that the respondent-assessee had paid 3commission’ to HDFC on payments received from customers who had made purchases through credit cards. Survey under Section 1 33A of the Act had been conducted on HDFC, […]

Read the Full Article

  • Dec
  • 16
  • 2014

Construction Business- In absence of Books 8% Net Profit held reasonable in Tax Audit case

In the case in hand, the appellate authorities have not applied Section 44AD as such. Difficulty arose as they had to estimate reasonable rate of net profit. In the absence of any data and details, they applied the net profit rate as mentioned in Section 44AD. As recorded above, we had asked counsel for the […]

Read the Full Article

  • Dec
  • 14
  • 2014

Section 14A cannot be invoked when no exempt income was earned

Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT vs. M/s. Lakhani Marketing Inc, ITA No.970 of 2008 (O&M) , Dated- 02.04.2014 made reference to two earlier decisions of the same Court in CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Limited, 323 ITR 518 and CIT Vs. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd 319 ITR 204 to hold that Section 14A cannot […]

Read the Full Article

  • Dec
  • 14
  • 2014

No Wealth tax on Assets Purchased by Wife out of loan from Husband- Shah Rukh khan gets relief

Mr. Shah Rukh khan Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (ITAT Mumbai) The facts, in brief, are that the assessee declared net wealth of Rs.2,75,28,460/- in his wealth tax return. The ld. Assessing Officer accepted the wealth declared by the assessee by passing an order u/s 16(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The Revenue […]

Read the Full Article

  • Dec
  • 13
  • 2014

Asset Side of Balance Sheet cannot be isolated from Liability side

CA Prarthana Jalan Facts of the case –  The assessee is  engaged in agricultural and allied activity. This company is one of the group companies constituted by Shri B.Ramalinga Raju and his family members. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer called for the books of account of the assessee, wherein it was […]

Read the Full Article

  • Dec
  • 10
  • 2014

Sec 2(22)e is not attracted on Security deposit made in normal course of business

In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Ltd., 318 ITR 476, an advance was given to the said assessee by the sister concern, which held 50% of the share holding in the assessee concern for mordenisation project. The advance so given was adjusted against the dues for job work to be done by the assessee.

Read the Full Article

  • Dec
  • 04
  • 2014

S. 80P Co-Operative Credit Society is a Bank if it Satisfies the conditions of a Primary Bank

From the reading of Sec. 80P(4) it is apparent that this section denies deduction to a co-operative bank other than a primary agricultural credit society or primary co- operative agricultural and rural development bank. The provisions of Sec. 80P(4) was introduced in the statute by the Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 1.4.2007.

Read the Full Article

  • Dec
  • 03
  • 2014

Registration as ITP not necessary to appear before revenue

As per clause (a) of Rule 49, an ‘authorized income-tax practitioner’ is any authorized representative as defined in clause (v) or clause (vi) or clause (vii) of sub-section (2) of section 288 for appearing before this Tribunal. It cannot be read to mean that an authorized representative as defined in sub-section (2) has to get himself registered as an authorized income-tax practitioner.

Read the Full Article