The issue under consideration is whether industrial Promotion Assistance (IPA) received by the assessee-Company from the West Bengal Government is taxable under income tax?
The contention of the assessee is that since final consideration was paid and the possession of flat was received within a period of one year prior to the date of transfer of capital asset, the same should be considered as the date of purchase. Whereas, the stand of Department is that the date of execution of agreement for purchase of flat should be considered as the date of purchase.
The issue under consideration is whether the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source from the payment made towards Harvesting charges is justified in law?
Shri Kasi Viswanathan Ramnathan Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) The issue under consideration is whether the denial of exemption under section 54F by CIT(A) is justified in law? In the present case, assessee has claimed the exemption u/s 54F in the return including the amount which had not been utilized before 31.07.2012. But later the assessee utilized the entire sale […]
Explore the ITAT Bangalore case Ananda Social & Education Trust vs ACIT. Analysis of MBBS Management Quota fees suppression and legal conclusions. Learn more.
Compensation received in respect of non agricultural land which has been exempted from levy of income-tax vide section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act shall also not be taxable under the provisions of income-tax Act, 1961 even if there is no specific provision of exemption for such compensation in the Income-tax Act, 1961
The issue under consideration is whether A.O. is correct by adding long term capital gains by applying section 50C in case where land is transferred by the partner in his firm as capital contribution?
ITAT Remit Back the case of Actor Dulquer Salmann (Assessee) back to Assessing Officer (AO) as Information reconciling source for investments which were added as undisclosed income were placed before it but not placed before AO.
In the given case, the contention of the petitioner is essentially that, why the Appellate Authority deemed it necessary for the petitioners to pay 20% of the total demand, as a condition for stay of the balance 80% of the demand arising from the assessment order during the pendency of the appeal.
Revised enhanced minimum threshold limit of tax effect of Rs. 50,00,000 vide recent CBDT Circular No. 17/2-19, dt. 8-8-2019 was applicable not only for appeals to be filed by revenue in future; but also for appeals already filed by revenue in ITAT. Accordingly, all existing appeals in ITAT, having tax effect below revised/enhanced limit of Rs. 50,00,000, had to be treated as withdrawn/not pressed, and therefore, not maintainable.
