ITAT Delhi held that applying the provisions of section 51 of the Act, the amount of advance which was forfeited would be deducted from the cost of acquisition of the asset at the time of actual transfer of the asset in future.
ITAT Mumbai held that merely because assessee has dealt with suspected scrips, addition u/s 69C is not justified as purchase and sale of scrips were through recognized stock exchange and payments were through banking channel only.
Nagarathinam Rajendran Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) Since the assessee could not file his return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271 F of the Act. There was no response from the assessee against the penalty notice. Since, the assessee failed to file his return […]
Dinesh Sitaram Patil Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) We note that, while culminating the reassessment proceeding in the case of the assessee, the Ld. AO vide concluding para placed at page 4 of his order communicated the assessee his action of initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of Act for ‘under reporting / mis-reporting’ of income […]
Jatinderpal Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar) Relying on the decision of ITAT Amritsar in the case of Kulwant Singh v. ITO in ITA No. 519/Asr/2014 dated 19.02.2015 appellant submitted that the credit of the income returned by the assessee should have been allowed from the peak credit balance sustained by the CIT(Appeal). It was submitted […]
State Government Undertaking may be considered as a State instrumentality within the definition of article 12 of Constitution of India, the same cannot be treated as Central or State Government
ITAT Kolkata held that provisions of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act doesn’t apply to cash payments when ultimately the amount is deposited in the bank account of the payee.
ITAT Delhi held that interest on bank deposits, receipts of subsidy and insurance claim are eligible to be included in profits of 100% export oriented unit for purpose of claiming deduction under section 10B of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition towards closing cash balance as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 unsustained as cash was generated from agricultural activity and revenue failed to discharge the onus of disproving the said contention of the assessee.
Section 54F does not require one to one co-relation between capital gain arising out of transfer of long term capital asset and utilisation thereof for purchase /construction of residential house.
