That where the investments are converted into stock-in-trade, the difference between the market value of the investments as on date of conversion and the cost of investments is assessable under the head long term capital gains and taxable in the year in which such securities were sold as a part of the stock-in-trade.
The amount once invested in the capital gain scheme cannot be brought to tax in the year of investment itself without considering the utilization within the period allowed under the said scheme.
Payment of Sewage Tax was claimed as business expenditure, refund of same would be liable to be assessed under the head Business Income.
Rohan Pereria Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present appeal raised through various grounds of appeal relates to the allowance of expenditure claimed as development expenditure on sale of land situated at Baner, Pune while computing the capital gains on the sale of said land. On careful perusal of the order of the […]
Jagubhai Chhaganbhai Patel Vs I.T.O (ITAT Surat) In this cases in quantum appeals assessee was granted substantial relief in deleting major part of additions and only part of capital gains only on account of cost of improvement on pucca structure was partly upheld on estimation basis. Therefore, all substantial additions were either deleted or upheld […]
Bhalchandra Educational Trust Vs CIT (Exemptions) (ITAT Lucknow) CBDT vide Circular No. 7/2018 dated 20/12/2018 has issued directions for condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act in filing of Form 10 and Form 9A for assessment year 2016-17. The analysis of directions of CBDT vide this circular reveals that since assessment year 2016-17 was the […]
Hiralaxmi Ishwarlal Mehta Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT noted that the assessee already disclosed the bogus long term capital gain claim on sale of penny stock shares under income disclosure scheme. The sum so disclosed was Rs. 16,20,156/-. The cost of these shares was Rs. 30,673/- which was a component of the total sale proceeds […]
Rajesh Vitthal Badade Vs JCIT (ITAT Pune) It is found as an admitted position that the AO recorded statement of Mr. Sampat G. Mandhare and Mrs. Dropadabai Fakirrao Harpale, who had given sum of Rs. 5.00 lakh and Rs.7.00 lakh respectively to the assessee as advance for purchase of the land. Here it is relevant […]
ITAT held that where loans and advances are given in normal course of business and transaction in question benefits both payer and payee companies, provisions of section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked.
.In the reason for delay in filing the appeal the appellant has stated that Advocate was busy in filing the GST returns and forgot to file the said appeal.
