The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) is correct in confirming the addition while treating the compensation received for relinquishment of right to sue as taxable business income & accordingly considered it as revenue receipt as against the capital receipt?
The issue under consideration is whether the re-opening of assessement u/s 147 is justified in law?
NKC Projects (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) It could be seen from the assessment order that while dealing with the issue of allowability of the bank guarantee commission, learned Assessing Officer held that on identical facts in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2011-12 an addition under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was […]
Lustre Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The only dispute in the instant appeal is regarding the treatment of the loss on account of forfeiture of share application money amounting to Rs. 41,61,000/- as business loss or capital loss. While the loss is not in dispute, according to the assessee it is a business […]
Assessee is entitled to include interest in the capital cost while computing capital gains U/s 48 of the Act. Judicial discipline requires us to follow the order of a co‑ordinate bench.
Sakharam Bhondve Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) The issue under consideration is whether the deduction u/s 54F for reinvestment against Capital gain in the name of wife and son will be allowed or not? As per the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kamal Wahal (supra): “It also noted that a […]
The ITAT Ahmedabad has harped upon the mechanical practices adopted by the Assessing Officers to make addition u/s 68. The moot point is that a sale which already forms part of books of account cannot be added again u/s 68 due to the reasons that Sales are already recorded in the books of accounts and the addition of the same amounts to double taxation. A prejudiced view on sale cannot be drawn when purchases are accepted without any reservation. Section 68 connotate amount credits in books of account remained unexplained need to be added. Recorded sales are not unexplained cash credits.
AO was not justified in treating assessee’s transaction of purchase of agricultural land from his wife as colorable device to avoid the legitimate payment of tax on mere difference between purchase price declared by assessee vis-a-vis Jantri Value as assessee had discharged his primary onus by furnishing the necessary details to justify the cost of acquisition and now the onus was on the Revenue to bring on record the details of the cases to justify the actual prevailing market rate at the time of the purchase of land by assessee.
A perusal of sub-section (2) of section 72A read with rule 9C reveals that condition of minimum level of production is to be seen at the end of four years and in case of non-fulfillment of the same set-off of accumulated losses and unabsorbed depreciation, already claimed, would be chargeable to tax as income of the fourth year as per sub-section (3) of section 72A.
The issue under consideration is whether the issue of penalty notice u/s 271D is justified under the Act? Penalty u/s 271D shall not be levied in the case of near relatives
