Utilisation of capital gains within time specified would entitle assessee to claim deduction under section 54, notwithstanding fact that new asset was registered beyond period specified under section 54, which according to assessee was beyond her control and was to be liberally construed.
Since none of the orders of the authorities below was at any discussion or finding regarding mensrea or unlawful gain to the appellant or attributing any knowledge on his part, therefore, the orders denying the duty exemption benefit and confirmed the differential duty of Rs.26,12,902/- with interest and imposed a penalty of Rs.26,12,902/- along with interest under Section 114A was merely proceed on basis of speculations which was not justified.
The Honble Supreme Court held that in the event of Slum Sale, the appellant would not be liable for any tax obligations before the date on which Agreement was executed as the appellant was neither a dealer nor a manufacturer before the date of execution of Agreement.
The Honble Supreme Court while decreasing the awarded compensation under Land Acquisition Act, held that the compensation determined on the basis of the Notification 5 years later, cannot be a yardstick for determining the compensation for the land which is acquired five years before and therefore, the claimants shall not be entitled to the same compensation as awarded with respect to the lands acquired after 5 years from the date of acquisition.
The Honble Supreme Court directed Insurance Company to process the complainants insurance claim and remit the payable sum as all formalities on behalf of deceased was completed. Further, a complete malafide intention was deciphered out from the sequence of events through which Insurance Company was trying to deny all benefits.
The Honble Supreme Court while allowing appeal observed that there is no provision under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 that the workers/employees employed by the contractor automatically become the employees of the appellant and/or the employees of the contractor shall be entitled for automatic absorption and/or they become the employees of the principal employer.
The Honble Supreme Court observed that effecting transfer subject to a condition of providing the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor – senior citizen is sine qua non for applicability of sub-section (1) of Section 23. In the present case, it was not even pleaded by respondent no.1 that the release deed was executed subject to such a condition.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court determined compensation under Motor vehicles Act, 1988 on basis of Income Tax Return which was held to be a statutory document on which reliance be placed, where available, for computation of annual income.
ITAT Bangalore held that provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act are not applicable to the remittance made in India by non-resident.
ACIT Vs Bhagwati Coal Movers (P) Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) ITAT Delhi held that the ‘Security Premium Reserve’ cannot be regarded as part of accumulated profits under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. Facts- AO observed that the assessee has obtained loan amounting to Rs.5,52,50,000/- from M/s. Ajmala Stationery Ltd. A part of the loan […]
