Assessee was not entitled to the benefit of section 54F in respect of the investment made by assessee in purchasing the capital asset (land) as the said purchase of land was not within a period of one year prior to the sale of capital asset or falling in any of the categories in which assessee was entitled to claim exemption u/s.54F.
Though vehicles were registered in the name of directors of company, beneficial ownership vested with assessee since payment was made for the purchase of vehicles by the assessee. Thus, assessee was duly entitled for depreciation thereon, especially when assessee had claimed other expenses in connection with vehicle and non-disallowance thereof proved use of vehicles for assessee’s business purpose.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be levied as assessee had proved that there was a reasonable cause for making the wrong claim under section 54 instead of section 54F.
ITAT held that roaming charges paid by the appellant to other telecom companies are not covered under ‘fee for technical service’ and such payments are out of the purview of TDS provision of 194J of the Act.
In absence of registered sale deed, the house boat purchased cannot be said as residential house and hence deduction u/s 54 cannot be allowed. Further The same cannot be equated with the residential house which is immovable property and hence deduction u/s 54 not allowed.
Assessee submitted that they have not received any carbon credit during the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. Assessee submitted that addition made by AO on account of non-existence income ought to be deleted.
The assessee has duly discharged its initial onus by submitting sufficient proof substantiating purchase and the payment is also routed through banking channel, simply because of non-existence of parties at the given address, the transaction cannot be treated as bogus and no addition can be made accordingly.
In view of section 92CA(4) as substituted by Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 1-6-2007, AO was bound by the order passed by TPO as he is required to compute total income in conformity with the ALP determined by TPO.
Explore the judgment by ITAT Hyderabad in Apna Incable Broad Band Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, addressing depreciation on network rights and technical service fee disallowance.
Assessee was not entitled to capital gain exemption under section 54 for purchase of houseboat as the same could not be equated with the residential house which was immovable property.
