On agricultural Land no tax is payable when the compensation/enhanced compensation is received by the assessee as their land were agricultural land. The compensation was received in respect of agricultural land belonging to the assessee which had been acquired by the state government.
It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer admitted the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 54F(1)(b) in respect of investment on long term capital gain but instead of taking actual sale consideration received, has adopted the figure of sale consideration by invoking Section 50C. This is not in accordance with the provision of Section 50C which has created a deeming fiction. Section 54F is an exemption provision and it has given its applicability in itself, therefore, Section 50C will not come under picture.
In the present case, the appellant neither put a plea of prejudice before the AO nor before us. It was simply stated that since the proceedings were launched by respondent SEBI after a period seven years, the same should be quashed on the ground of delay. The record would show that all the documents concerning the defense of the appellant were filed by her before the AO. Therefore, for want of any prejudice the proceedings cannot be quashed simply on the ground of delay in launching the same.
Blue Star Civil Engineering Company Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata) The facts of the case are that the assessee M/s. Blue Star Civil Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. Mecheda was engaged in evacuation of ash pond for Durgapur Projects Ltd., Purba Medinipur Zilla Parishad, Rites Ltd. for railway and McNally Bharat for […]
The appeal preferred by the Revenue. The issue under consideration is with regard to the bogus purchases conducted by the assessee and as per revenue CIT(Appeals) has erred in granting relief to the assessee without dealing specifically with the facts of the case and even not calling for any remand report from the Assessing Officer.
In the given case, the first issue raised by the assessee is relates to the disallowance of business expenses from the remuneration earned by the assessee from the partnership firm assessed as business income u/s. 28 (v) of the IT Act, 1961.
ITAT do not find any merit in this ground of appeal of the assessee. Accordingly we hold that assessee trust is not eligible for standard deduction at the rate of 30% u/s 24 (a) of the act, out of the rental income chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee.
The writ petition is not maintainable challenging the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Hon’ble Supreme court in GKN Drive Shafts’ case reported in 259 ITR 19 (SC), clarified the procedure to be followed, when notice is issued under Section 148. Therefore, the petitioner has to follow such procedure including by asking the reasons for reopening the assessment. Upon the request so made, the reasons can be furnished and the petitioner can file objections and the Officer thereafter has to pass a speaking order before proceeding with the assessment. In this case, the writ petitioner has not filed the return and on the other hand filed the present writ petition straightaway.
The issue raised by the assessee challenging the action of AO in holding the income from providing IT support services as taxable for fees for technical services.
The issue under consideration is whether the exemption u/s 54 can be denied only with the reason that the new property has been purchased in the name of son and not in the name of that assessee.
