The appellant/assessee, which is a HUF, sold its agricultural land for Rs.14,28,400/ – in September, 1995 giving rise to a long term capital gain of Rs.9,67,412/ -. The assessee claimed that the capital gain be not charged as it was entitled to the benefit of Section 54-F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The crux of the matter is: what is the meaning to be ascribed to the expression used for the purposes of the business as found in Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The provision of Section 32 pertains to depreciation. The contention of the Revenue is that with respect to any machinery for which depreciation is claimed under Section 32,
It cannot be laid down as a proposition of law that once a petition is admitted, it could never be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy; therefore, the High Court can entertain the plea whether the writ is maintainable on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, even after the writ petition was admitted and rule nisi was ordered
The land which falls within the exception of `urban land’ would have to be excluded from the ambit and scope of expression `urban land’ and, such land would not be covered by the expression `assets’ as defined in section 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957; consequently, such land would not be treated as net wealth of an assessee for the purposes of provisions of the Act.
Question Nos. 10 and 11 pertain to assessee’s challenge against levy of interest under section 234B of the Act for non-payment of advance tax. The assessee has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT V. RANCHI CLUB LTD., 247LT.R, 209 and decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. INCHCAPE INDIA (P) LTD.,
Even though standing counsel for the department contended that if the Director of Lottery has made unauthorised deduction it is for the assessee to pursue his remedy elsewhere, we do not think that the assessee can be expected to recover this amount through the litigation against the State Government On the other hand we feel that if the State Government is recovering income tax and retains it for itself payment to the Central Government
Question Nos. 2 to 6 pertain to one and the same issue, that is, whether IVP is a capital asset or not. It is seat from the orders of the Tribunal that investment in IVP is assessed in the case of the assessee as unexplained investment only to the extent of fresh investment made in the respective year and reinvestment after encashment of earlier deposits was in tact allowed.
The first question pertains to disallowance of assessee’s claim of deduction on salary paid to doctors, staff and depreciation for car, furniture, etc. in the determination of professional income of the assessee. The assessee’s grievance is that the Tribunal rejected the claim for the reason that the claim was made for the first time before the Tribunal and the assessee never raised the issue in assessment before the officer or in first appeal before the first appellate authority.
S. 47 (v) provides that a transfer of a capital asset by a subsidiary company to its holding company shall not be regarded as a “transfer” if the whole of the share capital of the subsidiary company is held by the holding company. The assessee transferred shares to its subsidiary and claimed exemption from capital gains u/s 47 (v). The AO denied exemption on the ground that as two shares of the said subsidiary
ICAI won the Income Tax Exemption Case in the High Court – Scope of the term “Charitable Purpose” defined by the High Court – In order to have a charity, you must have a source of income – Section 10(23C)(iv) September 2, 2009. Director General of Income Tax (Exemption) has denied the exemption to Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI)
