If guideline value of the property as on date of agreement of sale is considered, then there is no difference between consideration paid by the assessee for purpose of purchase of property and value assessed by stamp duty valuation authority and thus, provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, cannot be invoked.
Satyabhama Avadhanula Karimnagar Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) I find the Assessing Officer on the basis of inquiry conducted u/s 131(1)(d) made addition of Rs.22.00 lakhs being unexplained cash found from the possession of the assessee and made addition of the same u/s 69A rws 115BBE of the I.T. Act. I find the learned CIT (A) […]
Liladevi Dokania Vs ITO (ITAT Surat) It is evidently clear that assessee received the rent income, and the Tenant (Deductor) has deducted TDS but has not deposited the TDS so deducted into the Central Government Account. Considering these facts, we note that issue under consideration is no longer res integra. The Hon`ble High Court of […]
R R M Trading Co. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) ITAT find that AO has restricted the payment of interest to the related parties @ 18% to 12% on the ground that it is excessive and unreasonable looking to the fact that assessee has paid interest to the partners @ 12% which is in accordance with […]
Essel Mining & Industries Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT held that sale of Renewable Energy Certificate (Carbon Credit) of income received by the assessee is a capital receipt and could not be business receipt or income nor it is directly linked with the business of the assessee nor any asset is generated in the […]
Tufropes Pvt Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) One fact very clearly emerges from the documents annexed to the petition and the affidavits is that the advance licences of petitioner were invalidated for direct import of relevant HDPE/P Granules / Chips and petitioner was allowed to procure the same indigenously from Reliance Industries […]
Gurmeet Kaur Khurana Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee had invested an amount of Rs.6 lacs for immovable property with M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. The investment was made vide cash payments. The transaction was flagged. It was noticed that no tax return was filed by the assessee. […]
Ela Roy Vs ITO (Calcutta High Court) Petitioner being the sister of the noticee, in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act has filed the return. Petitioner submits that she being a lay person, due to inadvertence has filed the return on behalf of her brother noticee though she had already informed the […]
Commissioner of Central TAX Vs ABB Limited (Karnataka High Court) Undisputed facts of the case are, as recorded in paragraph 6 of the show cause notice, it was issued based on the balance sheet for the year ending 2008. Thus, the contentions of the Revenue that respondents trading activity was not known to the department […]
Technova Imaging Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) Refusal of SAD to the Appellant-importer by the Refund Sanctioning Authority that has received concurrence of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the second round of litigation is assailed in this appeal. The gist of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is that goods imported and goods […]
