The Hon’ble Chennai ITAT has in the case of B.Sivasubramanian,v/s ITO has held that there is no condition in the provisions of SEC 54F of the I.T Act,1961 that warrants that the building plan of the residential house constructed should be approved by the Municipal Corporation or any other competent authority.
The provisions of section 54F mandates the construction of a residential house, within the period specified. However, there is no condition that the building plan of the residential house constructed should be approved by the Municipal Corporation or any other competent authority. If any person constructs a house without approval of building plan, he will be raising construction at his own risk and cost. As far as for availing exemption u/s.54F, approval of building plan is not necessary.
Whether for the purpose of determining arm’s length price of international transactions of the assessee-company, providing back office support services to their overseas associated enterprises, companies performing KPO functions should be considered as comparable?
A bare reading of section 54F clearly shows that the assessee is entitled for exemption in case he / she constructs a residential house within a period of three years after the sale of the capital asset. However, sub clause (4) of section 54F clearly says that the unutilized portion of the net sale consideration which is otherwise liable for capital gain tax shall be deposited in the capital gain account scheme within the period of due date for filing return of income u/s 139.
Agra ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs. Shri Yogendra Kumar Singhal has held that Quality & lavishness of construction is not incriminating material. Reference cannot be made to the Valuation Officer in the absence of incriminating material/document found during the course of search
Hon’ble ITAT Agra in the case of ACIT V/s. Kalyani Chaturvedi held that Re-appreciation of seized material in subsequent proceedings by the AO is unjustified and quashed the Re-assessment Order. Hon’ble ITAT has held as under
Condition of limiting commercial establishment/shops to 2000 sq.ft, which has come into force w.e.f. 1.4.2005 would be applicable for the project approved on or after 1.4.2005 and where the approval of the project was prior to 31.3.2005, the amended provision would have no application for those projects.
Hon,ble ITAT Agra has held in the case of ACIT Vs. Sunil C Gupta that Cash seized to be adjusted against advance tax liability. Explanation-2 to Section 132B of the Act enacted with effect from 1st June 2013. Hon’ble ITAT has upheld the observations of ld CIT(A) which are as under
ACIT vs. Shri Damodar Dass Batra (ITAT Delhi) – The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,23,263/- made by the A.O. without considering the fact that these commission expenses are bogus and fictitious and could not be fully substantiated by the assessee.
ITAT Ahemdabad has held in the case DCIT Vs. Shri Radhakant M. Tripathy that The very fact that the legislature has allowed investment in new property one year prior to the date of transfer establishes in no uncertain terms that it need not be the sale
