Keerthi Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) The assessee has paid compounding fine to regularize the building plan. The payment of such compounding fine is penalty in the nature of an offence or which is prohibited by law. We have noticed that the decision on this count is divided among the various courts. The […]
Arnab Bose Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) In the instant case, the employer has directly credited the salary, for services rendered outside India, into the NRE bank account of the seafarer in India. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid Circular is vague in as much as it does not specify as to whether the Circular covers […]
The Tribunal has been given power to admit an appeal after the expiry of the relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period as per Section 253(5). However, this Tribunal is not enshrined with such powers in respect of a miscellaneous petition filed u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. If we are not given that power, then it is not expected from us to exercise such power which is not provided in the Act.
A bare reading of sections 54 and 54F of the Act nowhere states that the surplus remaining after claiming deduction under section 54/54F on account of construction of house property undertaken in a year, would not be allowed set off against long-term capital gain earned in the succeeding year.
Section 254(2) of the Act refers to the period of limitation reckoning from the end of the month in which the order is passed and not from the date of ‘date of receipt of the served/ received are not interchangeable and the Legislature in its wisdom expressly used the phraselogy depending on the intention. In the instant case, the expression passed cannot be stretched to mean that the period of limitation should be reckoned from the date of receipt of the order.
Reimbursement of expenses against separate bills to C&F agents doesn’t require TDS and hence no dis allowance u/s 40(a)(1a)… ITAT Cochin bench held in the case of St. Mary’s Rubbers dismissing revenue’s appeal
According to section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for short the Act), where a return has been furnished under section 139 of the Act, or in response to a notice under section 142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer(AO) or the prescribed income-tax authority, as the case may be, if, considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income
A welcome decision of Mumbai ITAT in respect of the charging of capital gain on the difference between the valuation adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority and declared by the assessee
In view of the undisputed fact that a sum of Rs. 18,63,61,346/- was offered to tax though it was originally debited to the profit and loss account during the AY 2011-12,and because of the cost reimbursement agreement between the assessee and the parent entity on 18.05.2012 pursuant to which a sum of Rs. 13,21,53,000/- and Rs. 5,44,13,490/- was credited to the profit and loss account
In the instant case the impugned property was sold at a value lesser than the value adopted for the purpose of stamp duty. Therefore the valuation determined for the purpose of stamp valuation is taken as sale consideration. However, such deeming provision cannot be applied to the provision of law as specified Section 54EC of […]
