Coming to a concomitant situation that if booking of flats does not tantamount to ownership of the house then how come the assessee claim that by booking a flat it has acquired ‘new house’ and becomes entitle for this exemption.
For the year under consideration the assessee has specifically raised a point before the AO that 97.82% of the investment is in the subsidiary companies and joint venture companies and, therefore, no expenditure was incurred for maintaining the portfolio on these investments
“As evident from a plain look at the ground of appeal, the actual grievance of the appellant is not on merits but on the legal issue regarding limitations on the powers of the CIT(A) on the ground that post 1st June 2001
It is an admitted fact that the assessee has changed the method of depreciation from straight line method to written down value method. Deprecation has been calculated in accordance with the new method from the date of assets coming into use.
Sri Sivani Educational Society Vs. ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam) Chit fund business is governed by the principles of mutuality and contribution to a chit fund is contribution to oneself on the principle of mutuality and hence, it is not an investment as contemplated by section 13(1)(d) read with section 11(5) of Income Tax Act, 1961. As […]
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra), has held that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders whose names are given to the AO then the department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessment in accordance with law but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee company.
It is a fact that the assessee is not required to prove the source of source of the amount found credited in the accounts of loan creditors as held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dwarik Dwarikadhish Investment (P.) Ltd. (supra) and CIT vs. Diamond Products Ltd. (supra).
The Assessing Officer as well as Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) has failed to determine the correctly the hawala Income. The appellant has issued Bills i.e. Sales Bills to the commercial world i.e. the needy persons. Who has paid the appellant the Hawala Commission.
Issue for consideration is in relation to allowing deduction under sec. 54 of the Act in respect of the whole of the amount invested by the assessee in the purchase of residential house. The assessee purchased residential property at C-602, The Residency, Ardee City, Gurgaon in joint name with his wife Smt. Ritu Verma and claimed deduction under sec. 54 of the Act in respect of amount of Rs. 80,00,000/- invested in residential property.
It is an undisputed fact that as on date, there was no developmental activity on the land which is subject matter of development agreement. The process of construction has not been even initiated and no approval for the construction of the building is obtained.
