No appeal should be filed before Tribunal in case tax effect does not exceed Rs.10 lakhs. The tax effect means the difference between tax on the total income assessed and tax that what have been chargeable had such total income been reduced by the amount of income in respect of issues against which appeal is intended to be filed. This circular further states that tax will not include any interest thereon the chargeability of interest itself is in dispute.
1. The argument of the assessee in this case is that the selection for scrutiny of this case manually done by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and that the Commissioner of Income Tax has granted approval for selection of this case for scrutiny by the AO without application of mind. Ld. Counsel for […]
In this case AO has made addition merely on the basis of ledger extract filed by the assessee on the assumption that the said payments are interest payments which attracts TDS under the provisions of section 194A of the Act, without conducting further inquiries in the background of the assessee’s claim that the said payments […]
Hon’ble Ravi Shankar Prasad, Union Minister of Law & Justice Hand Electronics & Information Technology, inaugurated Surat bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, on 1st September, 2017. Hon’ble Shri P.P.Chaudhary, Union Minister of State for Law & Justice and Electronics & Information Technology, was the Guest of Honor of the function. Hon’ble Members of Parliament Shri C. R. Paatil, Smt. Darshana Jarodsh, Dr. K. C. Patel, Shri Manuskhbhai D. Vasva, and Shri Nathubhai G. Patel were also present on the occasion.
In the instant case, the deductee has filed the return of income on 14.12.2012 and the long term capital gains resulted into capital loss which resulted into nil demand. According to the assessee, there was no tax payable by the deductee on the transaction of sale of immovable property. When there is no tax payable by the deductee on sale of land, there is no question of charging interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act, as per instruction No.2 of 2014 dated 26.2.2014 and the circulars are binding on the Departmental officers. Therefore, we hold that there is no case for charging interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act as per instruction No.2 of 2014 and accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
AO was justified in making addition under section 68 on account of unexplained cash deposits found in bank account in case having regard to the human probabilities and normal course of human conduct, explanation offered by assessee was not wholesome, credible and verifiable.
Where assessee purchased Ground Floor of the house property and had also purchased first floor of the said house property and deduction for both the ground floor and the first floor under section 54F by treating both the floors as one single residential unit thus he was entitled to became two different floors of one house property could not be treated as two different residential houses.
Reference made to DVO under section 55A on the ground that value declared by assessee, as per Government registered valuer’s report was more than FMV, was not justified as AO could make reference to DVO only when he was of the opinion that value claimed in the registered valuer’s report was less than the fair market value.
If second borrowing has really been used to repay the original loan and this fact is proved to the satisfaction of AO, interest paid on the second loan would also be allowed as deduction under section 24.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad held that exemption under section 54(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be denied to the assesse for the mere reason that the assesse has invested the capital gain in a normal term deposit account instead of Capital Gain Scheme account.
