Agricultural operations carried out by assessee on land/soil, being human skill and labour were basically agricultural operation and as such just because mushrooms are grown in controlled conditions it does not negate claim of assessee that income arising from sale of such mushrooms was agricultural income and thus exempt under section 10(1).
DCIT Vs. Inventaa Industries Private Limited (ITAT Hyderabad Special Bench) Mushrooms are fungus which are produced from spawn and not plants or crops and hence not agriculture. They are grown in trays of prepared soil in climate controlled rooms for commercial. We cannot restrict the word “product” to ‘plants’, ‘fruits’, ‘vegetables’ or such botanical life […]
Satbir & Ors. Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) Capital gains–Interest on enhanced compensation arising on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land–Taxability Interest earned under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which is on enhanced compensation, is treated as an accretion to the value and therefore, is part of the enhanced compensation or consideration. Therefore, interest on […]
Where assessee did not have any exempt income during the year and investments being held by it were in the nature of Strategic Investments, no disallowance under section 14A could be made.
Completed assessments can be interfered with by AO while making assessment under section 153A only on the basis of some incriminating material found during the course of search. Since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, no additions could have been made to the income already assessed.
Where AO had issued the notice of penalty without specifying the grounds of the same, imposition of penalty was unjustified, because this being a mandatory requirement could not be construed as a mere technical error.
Challenging the order,dated 18/12/2015,of the CIT(A)-28 Mumbai the Assessing Officer (AO)has filed the present appeal.Assessee-firm,a builder and developer,filed its return of income on 25/09/2010,declaring total income of Rs.6.29 crores.The AO completed the assessment on 23/12/2011,determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.7.40 crores.
otwithstanding the fact that the TPO determined nil ALP of royalty payment and franchisee fee, the amount paid as R&D Cess on these payments has to be allowed as deduction since it is a statutory payment to the Government.
Since in the present case also the assessee had taken the loan from his wife for the purchase of house which is for the benefit of the whole family, therefore, following the decision cited [supra], we hold that penalty levied u/s 271D of the Act in the instant case is not justified.
The fact that the assessee has sold flats at an undervaluation does not mean that he has understated the consideration and earned undisclosed ‘on money’. The mere presumption that excess price could have been charged is not a ground for coming to the conclusion that the assessee did charge a higher price. The burden of proving such understatement or concealment is on the Revenue
