In the given case, the assessee is engaged in the trading of iron and steel. A.O. has reopened the assessment on getting information regarding assessee taking accommodation purchase bills.
ITAT held that a retiring partner took only money towards the value of his share on retirement and when there was no distribution of capital assets going to the partners, there was no transfer of capital asset and consequently, no profits or gain was chargeable under Section 45 (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The issue under consideration is whether deduction under section 80IAB will be allowed against the income of lease/ rental income from development of SEZ irrespective of wrong classification of head of income.
Since S.54F of the Act is a beneficial provision and the Hon’ble Courts have held that the beneficial provision should be construed liberally, I deem it fit and proper to admit assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act and remand the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to consider the eligibility of the assessee for deduction u/s 54F of the Act and allow the same if the assessee satisfies the conditions.
Sama Om Reddy Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) Ld.Counsel for the assessee had reiterated the submissions made by the assessee before the AO and has submitted that by virtue of the Agreement of Sale cum GPA and handing over of the possession, the assessee had transferred the property in favour of the Vendee/GPA-holder, Shri A.Manikyam. It […]
The issue under consideration is whether land sold by assessee engaged in property development taxable as capital gains or business income?
Exclusion of comparables from the list of comparables on basis of turnover, functional difference for determination of Arms Length Price was valid.
Service fees and membership & subscription fees were incurred for the purpose of business and to set up a transaction meant for overseas capital market, therefore, this expenditure could be treated preliminary expenditure for the purpose of business.
Veolia India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Ground- Learned CIT(A) has erred in considering amounts aggregating to Rs.26,839,975 towards Value Added Tax and Service Tax included in the customer’s work order as constituting part of construction contract value for the purposes of recognizing revenue under AS7. The CBDT Circular No. 4/2008 dated 04.04.2008 clarified […]
Pandhes Infracon Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Mumbai ITAT worked from home and lifted attachment u/s 226(3) from Bank and debtors of COVID quarantine facilities constructor 1. The taxpayer sought an urgent hearing in respect of the recovery of the Income-tax demand of Rs. 2.91 Crores for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The total income […]
