ITAT held that, the said amendment to Section 39(1)(va) and Section 43B effected by Finance Act 2021 is having prospective effect. Since, the said amendment is having prospective effect and not being retrospective one the same cannot be applied to the present case.
Late Shri Saifulla Abubakar Inamdar Legal Heir Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) Firstly, it is relevant to mention that the assessee did not take up the issue of Inami land before the AO. It was for the first time that the assessee raised this issue before the ld. CIT(A) contending that in the absence of any […]
Sandeep Modi Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) It is noted that the assessee has taken a life insurance policy in AY 2012-13 of the SBI of sum assured to the tune of Rs.10,88,000/- (along with credit bonus of 3.25%) by paying single premium of Rs.10,00,000/-. And in this year (AY 2017-18), the assessee received the LIC […]
Omprakash Pandey Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The assessee is aged about 71 years. The appeal before the CIT(A) was filed on 15.10.2020 electronically. Due to Covid-19 pandemic, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed exclusion of period from 15.03.2020. If this period is excluded, the delay has to be explained only between 15.11.2019 and 14.03.2020. The […]
Mattapalli Ram Kumar Vs ACIT (ITAT Vishakhapatanam) It is undisputed fact that the assessee had received compensation of Rs.1,33,88,000/- under compulsory acquisition of land under RFCTLARR Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has heavily relied on the Circular 36/2015 dated 25.10.2016 issued by the CBDT, wherein, it was mentioned that income tax shall not […]
Joison Kundu Kulam Johny Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Assessee submitted that his case was mishandled by one Mr. Nagesh Shastry, Income Tax Practitioner, who has been indulging in claim of fraudulent refunds by fictitious claim of deductions, which was unearthed by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department. It was submitted that without the […]
Scot Innovations Wires & Cables Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Goods, Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in UoI vs. Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2006 (201) ELT 559 (Kar.) =2008 (10) STR 101 (Kar.) has held that in the absence of any express prohibitory provisions, unutilised credit […]
J.K Infratech Vs Additional Commissioner (Allahabad High Court) In this case it transpires, the GST registration cancellation order dated 17.9.2019 was passed ex-parte pursuant to a notice claimed to be served through the common portal. The petitioner could not reply to the same as he claimed lack of knowledge. Thereby, ex-parte order was passed on […]
In re Anil Khirwal (GST AAR Jharkhand) The applicant sought Advance Ruling on the three questions i.e,- 1. What is the classification of service provided by the State of Jharkhand to the petitioner for which Royalty is being paid in light of the notifications mentioned below? 2. What is the GST Rate applicable on given […]
Whether right to receive Compensation/damages for release of right to sue on account of breach of contract for sale of Land is chargeable to tax in the hands of recipient as Capital gains?