The issue under consideration is whether the capital gain deduction benefit is restricted to only one residential property under section 54F of the Income Tax Act?
Yogesh Mavjibhai Gala Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai) A flat buyer acquire vested right in the flat upon payment of consideration and execution of allotment letter The holding period for the purpose of capital gain for income tax is calculated from the date of allotment of flat and not from the date of possession of flat. […]
Assessee produced all books of account, vouchers, bills and other documents but AO without pointing out any mistake and error in the bills/vouchers and without rejecting books of account, made addition @8%. On basis of suspicion and conjectures that assessee might be inflating its expenses and showing net profit ratio at a very low rate. Therefore, ends of justice would be met, if net profit rate of 2.50% was adopted.
The issue under consideration is whether decision based on a debatable point of view can be treated as a mistake apparent from the record?
The issue under consideration is whether the provisions of deduction of tax at source (TDS) would be applicable in case of payments made to non-resident Indian for the purchase of raw materials?
Infosys Ltd. Vs The ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) The issue under consideration is whether the stay application seeking an extension of the stay approve by the Tribunal? In the present case, the assessee submitted that the appeal had been fixed for hearing on January 20, 2020, when the earlier stay order was passed. Thereafter, the case […]
The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) is correct in upholding IDC receipts as normal trading receipts ignoring that the money belongs to state government?
It is not open to the revenue authorities to recharacterize the transaction unless it is found to be a sham or bogus transaction. While there are no specific powers vested in the TPO to recharacterize the transaction, even under the judge made law, such rechracterization can be done by the revenue authorities when the transactions are found to be substantially at variance with the stated form.
The issue under consideration is whether the addition u/s 40A(3) for advance which is returned back to the customer in cash is justified in law?
The issue under consideration is whether the addition on account of notional rent in respect of vacant property is justified in law?
