Shri Deepak Awatram Valecha Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) From the record we found that six plots of agriculture land was bought by the assessee with eight other persons. These plots of land were held for lease by owner and thereafter sold and profit accruing there on was claimed as exempt being income from sale of […]
Pradeep Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) In the present case, it is noticed that the AO issued notices u/s 148 and 142(1) of the Act at the address D-60, Noida Authority, Sector-108, Noida. However, the assessment was framed by mentioning the address of the assessee as P-3, Shop No. LGF 20, Krishna Apra Plaza, Sector-18, […]
Shanta Kapoor Vs ACIT (ITAT Agra) If AO omits to issue notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 to all legal representative (LRs) of deceased assessee, the reassessment would be null and void. Assessee ‘deceased’ had 3 legal heirs, two being sons and one daughter. The AO had not issued notices to all the […]
M/s. Sucon India Ltd Vs JCIT (ITAT Delhi) Loss suffered by assessee on derivative transaction is not speculative loss and as such eligible to be adjusted against business income and Explanation 73 of the Income Tax Act is not attracted. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT Appellant, M/s. Sucon India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as […]
Shri Rahul Singhal Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 02/07/2018 of ld. CIT (A)-3, Jaipur for the A.Y. 2014-14. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The impugned additions and disallowances made in the order U/s 143(3) of the Act dated 29/12/2016 are bad […]
Once assessee had undisputedly not filed the return of income U/s 139(1) then AO was well within his powers and jurisdiction to issue a notice U/s 142(1) requiring assessee to furnish return of income in the prescribed form and verified in prescribed manner, therefore, the notice issued u/s 142(1) was well within the framework of procedure for assessment provided under Chapter (xiv) and and notice could not be held to be invalid on account of mere mentioning of an unnecessary section therein, i.e., section 153A..
section 2(47) laid down that transfer would include a transaction allowing possession of an immovable property in part performance of a contract of a nature referred to in Section 53A of the transfer of Property Act. In the case on hand, part performance of a contract had taken place and possession had been handed over. Thus, the claim of exemption was to be accepted as assessee had only one house property as on the date of sale of the plots of land giving rise to long-term capital gain.
Shri Govind Gangadhar Sabane Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) There is no dispute to the fact that one capital asset was sold and thereafter, new house was constructed. That both the Revenue Authorities in their respective orders have agreed that the Inspector had visited the site and has reported that residential house has been constructed consisting […]
Honda Motor Co. Ltd. Case: Where Reassessment Is Based Only On Allegation That Appellant Has PE In India, Notice Under Section 148 Cannot Sustain Once Arm’s Length Price Procedure Has Been Followed.
DCIT Vs Hema Mohanlal Divyasree (ITAT Cochin) We have carefully perused the JDA entered between the assessee and the developer. As per the JDA (in page 3 para 4), the construction should have completed and the share of build up area marked for the assessee ought to have been handed over within 36 months of obtaining necessary […]
