Sponsored
    Follow Us:

All ITAT

Exemption u/s 54EC allowable to legal owner of property as per registered sale deed

March 2, 2018 2121 Views 2 comments Print

Assessee-wife was not entitled to claim and be allowed exemption under Section 54 and 54 EC on the basis that both assessee’s being husband and wife had suo motu offered rental income equally in their returns of income and their intentions were that said property was a joint property and both of them having equal share therein because as per the recitals in the purchase and registered sale deeds of the aforesaid property, assessee-husband alone was the sole legal owner of the said property to the exclusion of all others, including his wife.

Assessee cannot claim exemption U/s. 54F and 54EC for investment made by spouse

March 2, 2018 2673 Views 0 comment Print

These are appeals filed by two assessees who are wife and husband. One appeal in IT(IT)A No.12/Bang/2014 is by Smt.Veena Nambyar directed against the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) -4, Bangalore dt.20.2.2014, in respect of the order of assessment passed. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dt.27.12.2011.

Penalty order liable for cancellation if penalty notice do not specify why it is been initiated

February 28, 2018 3777 Views 0 comment Print

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08.07.2013 passed by the CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi in appeal No. 03/12-13 for the AY 1997-98 passed u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short].

Penalty Notice without Application of Mind by AO is Invalid

February 28, 2018 1785 Views 0 comment Print

Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 27.03.2015 without striking off the irrelevant words, the penalty proceedings show a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and is, thus, unsustainable.

Addition U/s 68 merely for Share capital/ premium for Receipts from companies having registered office at same address not justified

February 28, 2018 3489 Views 0 comment Print

Commissioner (Appeals) therefore, rightly noted that there is no law that more than one Company cannot have its Registered Office at one address. The Companies could have change their address later on.

ITAT deletes Addition on account of notional interest on interest free advance

February 28, 2018 4125 Views 0 comment Print

Shri John Jacob Vs JCIT (ITAT Indore) Assessee had produced books of account and audited statements, which proved that the assessee had sufficient surplus in his capital account to give interest free loan. Further that, the AO as well as CIT(A) had not brought anything on record to show that money so advanced was out […]

AO cannot set-off of brought forward loss before allowing remuneration to partner

February 28, 2018 8400 Views 0 comment Print

Computation of book profit is as per section 40(b) and remuneration to partner is based on current year’s “Book Profits”, while set-off of brought forward losses is to be granted in terms of section 72. Therefore, while arriving at business income, deduction of section 40(b) is to be given first and then if at all there remains positive income, brought forward losses are to be set off.

Section 148 Notice in the name of non-existent firm was null and void

February 28, 2018 9666 Views 0 comment Print

AO issued notice under section 148 in the name of firm which had been converted into a private limited company. Assessee’s case was that re-assessment order passed by AO under section 143(3) read with section 147 was null and void. Held: Undisputedly, reassessment proceedings were initiated by AO on a non-existent firm and hence, reassessment order was null and void.

No Penalty for Delay in filing AIR due to reasonable cause

February 28, 2018 1491 Views 0 comment Print

Sub Registrar Dhansura Vs DIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Appellant is a Govt. servant and ld. AR stated that they have assigned job to submit AIR to some outsources agency and sometime staff of the outsources agency become careless. In these case, appellant is a newly incumbent with the office and was not aware of the income […]

S.40A(3) No Disallowance for Cash payments exceeding prescribed limit not claimed as expenditure

February 28, 2018 5046 Views 0 comment Print

These two appeals are filed by the Revenue and the assessee respectively challenging the order dated 18-12-2012 in Appeal No. 495/09-10/284 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XXXIII, New Delhi (hereinafter for short called as the learned Commissioner (Appeals)).

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031