ITAT held that making of an incorrect claim by assessee which is supported by a report of Chartered Accountant cannot be hold as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not warranted as the claim made under bonafide belief.
The ITAT New Delhi in the above cited case held even export made by assessee through third parties are also to be considered while working out deductions allowable u/s 10B as such exports are deemed exports and recognized by Foreign trade policy for extending export benefits.
In the instant case, the assessee has purchased the new residential house at Pune in July 2008 in dilapidated condition and immediately there-after undertaken extensive civil, plumbing, electrical & painting works to make it habitable
Smt. B. Radha & Ors. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) The impugned issue to be considered is whether the reopening of assessment on the basis of so-called statement of Shri Ramalinga Raju (Satyam Computers) is warranted. As seen from the additions made, there is no live-link with the reasons recorded and the additions made. In fact, […]
In this case assessee sold a property at Rs.20 lakhs against circle rate of 89 lakhs and spent more than a crore in construction of new residential property, exemption u/s 54F was claimed but the AO allowed exemption only with reference to 20 lakhs and balance amount was assessed as capital gain.
Non consideration of proposition laid down by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Holcim India (P) Ltd., reported as (2014) 90 CCH 0081 (Delhi H.C.) is an apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal.
The law under section 51 and 56(2)(ix) provides for the taxability of forfeiture of advance money received in the hands of seller. Till AY 2014-15, the forfeited sum was deductible from the cost and even the excess of forfeited money over cost was capital receipt not taxable by virtue of Supreme Court Judgment in Travoncore Rubbers.
A perusal of the agreement and the above undisputed facts shows that till date no transfer of the property in question has been completed under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Still further, the registered sale deed has not been executed by the assessee in favour of the Bank and consequently, sale is not yet completed.
Brief facts relating to the case are that a survey 133A of the Act was conducted in the premises of the assessee on 15/10/2009 during the course of which it was found that the assessee had deducted tax amounting to Rs.15,76,219/-
The ITAT bench of Mumbai in the above cited case law held that any contingent impact on profit/loss would not take the transaction to fall within the purview of international transaction. In the present case
