Prabhjit Singh Sidhu Vs. Asst. DIT (International Taxation) (ITAT Chandigarh) The facts before us also demonstrate that the disclosure in the return of income filed under section 148 of the Act was voluntary and before detection of the same by the Revenue. The payment of taxes on the said income two months prior to issue […]
DCIT Vs Gyscoal Alloys Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) Assessee had received share capital along with premium from its group concern and to prove the same, assessee had filed all the necessary details such as share applicants PAN card, audited accounts, income tax returns, confirmation, Demat statements, Inspectors inquiry report, copy of ledger account of investor entity […]
This is an application moved by the department for vacation of ad interim stay orders dated 15.2.2017 and 28.4.2017. It has been pleaded in the application that in this case the then concerned Assessing Officer had passed a very well-reasoned order while disallowing the claim of the assessee of exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act.
It was the contention of the AO in Income Tax proceedings that assessee had indeed handed over the possession of the property as on 01-04-2006, which led to assessing the capital gains arising on the transfer of that property in AY. 2007-08. Therefore, as on 31-03-2007, the property was no longer in the possession or ownership of assessee.
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in allowing the assessees appeal relying on the decision of the Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Smt. K.G. Ruminiamma (2011 )331 ITR 211 when the facts of the case are distinguishable from the assessee’s case. In the case of Smt. K.G Ruminiamma
Capital gain to be assessed in the hands of all the legal heirs who have inherited the land and also shared the sale consideration. Cost of acquisition has to be determined by considering relevant provisions of the Act as well as the fair market value of the land as on 01.04.1981.
In the case of M/s. A.N. Build well Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT, the ITAT Delhi bench comprising Amit Shukla (JM) and SH. O.P. Kant (AM) was held that if the significant risk and reward are transferred to the buyer, the amount received from the buyer to the extent of the stage of completion of the project has accrued to the Assessee- Builder and it should be subject to tax in terms of section 5 of the Income Tax Act.
Kailash A. Kothari Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Learned departmental representative submitted that it is abundantly clear that the said donor has no capacity to give the said gift. He submitted that in absence of the cogency of the capacity, mere declaration of gift cannot be accepted as sufficient. He further submitted that the bank statement […]
Both appeals by assessee are directed against the different orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-12, New Delhi, dated 28-2-2017 for assessment year 2011-2012, challenging the addition on merit as well as levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Roaming services are provided by telecom operators are in the nature of use of standard facilities, which do not require any human interface. Further, since the roaming charges are not paid for rendering managerial, technical or consultancy services, said services cannot be construed as fees for technical series as defined under provisions of section 194J of the Act. Therefore, the assessee is not required to deduct tax at source on such roaming charges.
