Sudha Eashwar Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) The assesse is claiming exemption by way of long term capital gains claimed by it to be earned on sale and purchase of Turbotech Engineering Ltd. by invoking provisions of Section 10(38) of the 1961 Act and onus is on the assessee to prove that these gains are genuine […]
The fact that bills were not raised did not stop accrual of income under the mercantile system of accounting. Therefore, the claim of assessee which was purely based on AS-9 was not sustainable and the revenue was justified in making the impugned addition.
Booking of bare shell of a flat was a case of construction of house property and not purchase, and since construction had been completed within three years of sale of original asset, assessee was duly entitled to deduction under section 54.
ITO Vs Sejal Gopalbhai Shah (ITAT Ahmedabad) The issue under consideration is whether capital gain will be taxed in the hands of general power of attorney holder with respect to land sold? ITAT states that, the assessee was just general Power of Attorney holder with respect to the lands in dispute. This fact has not […]
Dashrathbhai G. Patel Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Unlawful reference u/s Sec 142A in absence of tangible material and adopting FMV under different section 55A was in gross contradiction of law Conclusion: Since AO had merely issued reference to DVO under s.142A without any background or reasons and the Valuation Officer, in turn, had conferred within […]
The issue under consideration is whether Additional Depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) will be allowed if the assessee engaged in generation of electricity?
M/s. Charbhuja Marmo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi) Invalid Reassessment Proceedings can not be Revised Under Section 263 by PCIT It is well settled Law that since re-assessment proceedings are invalid and bad in law, therefore, such proceedings could not be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. It is also well […]
ITAT states that, in the given facts and circumstances and going by the clauses of the Scheme and reading them harmoniously and together the Tribunal held that the transfer of Lift Division comes within the purview of Section 2(47) of the Act but cannot be termed as a slump sale.
whether deduction u/s 54 can be denied if assessee initially purchased land with a view to put up construction but later changed his mind and instead, purchased a residential house?
When Transport Operators furnish their PAN to the person responsible for making payments to them, the Transport Operators would be outside the purview of TDS u/s 194C and that immunity from TDS u/s. 194C(1) in relation to payments to transporters, applies transporter and non-transporter contractees alike.
