Read the full text of the order by ITAT Delhi in Virender Rathee vs ITO case. The ITAT allows tax deduction on interest received from enhanced compensation against compulsory acquisition of agricultural land.
CIT(A) resolved the appeal, considering the TDS credit issue, on 08/05/2019. Therefore, PCIT can’t invoke s.263 revision proceedings for the same issue, per Explanation-1(c) to section 263(1) of the Act.
An examination of section 271AAB penalty when no undisclosed income is found during search actions. Discover how ITAT Nagpur ruled on this critical tax law issue.
According to the Income Tax Act, there is no requirement for active agricultural activity to be present at the time of selling agricultural land. The key condition is that the land must qualify as agricultural land. The Honourable Third Member supported this view and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, concluding that the consideration received from the sale of agricultural land was not subject to capital gains tax.
ITAT Kolkata held that as provisions of section 43CA of the Income Tax Act are introduced with effect from 1st April 2014, the said provisions are not applicable to ‘agreement to sell’ entered prior to 1st April 2014.
ITAT Delhi held that income classified as ‘business income’ but not considered for the purpose of working of deduction u/s 80HHC merely on the nomenclature that income are not derived from export is unjustifiable as it is not justified that income has no nexus with earning of export.
ITAT Mumbai held that cancellation of registration of trust retrospectively from AY 2016-17 under section 12AB(4) of the Income Tax Act is invalid.
Explore the case Dariyav Singh Vs ITO. Understand why the Assessing Officer was deemed unfit to rectify the Principal CIT’s mistake in form 5 under VSVS Scheme.
In present facts of the case, it was held that the services rendered were in the nature of advisory services as per the terms of the agreement, therefore these services cannot be the part of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under Article 13 of India – UK DTAA.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal while deducting the additions made by Ld. AO for repair and maintenance, it was observed that if the replacement is of a baby part only, then the same cannot be considered to be a capital expenditure.
