It was the contention of the AO in Income Tax proceedings that assessee had indeed handed over the possession of the property as on 01-04-2006, which led to assessing the capital gains arising on the transfer of that property in AY. 2007-08. Therefore, as on 31-03-2007, the property was no longer in the possession or ownership of assessee.
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in allowing the assessees appeal relying on the decision of the Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Smt. K.G. Ruminiamma (2011 )331 ITR 211 when the facts of the case are distinguishable from the assessee’s case. In the case of Smt. K.G Ruminiamma
Capital gain to be assessed in the hands of all the legal heirs who have inherited the land and also shared the sale consideration. Cost of acquisition has to be determined by considering relevant provisions of the Act as well as the fair market value of the land as on 01.04.1981.
In the case of M/s. A.N. Build well Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT, the ITAT Delhi bench comprising Amit Shukla (JM) and SH. O.P. Kant (AM) was held that if the significant risk and reward are transferred to the buyer, the amount received from the buyer to the extent of the stage of completion of the project has accrued to the Assessee- Builder and it should be subject to tax in terms of section 5 of the Income Tax Act.
Kailash A. Kothari Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Learned departmental representative submitted that it is abundantly clear that the said donor has no capacity to give the said gift. He submitted that in absence of the cogency of the capacity, mere declaration of gift cannot be accepted as sufficient. He further submitted that the bank statement […]
Both appeals by assessee are directed against the different orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-12, New Delhi, dated 28-2-2017 for assessment year 2011-2012, challenging the addition on merit as well as levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Roaming services are provided by telecom operators are in the nature of use of standard facilities, which do not require any human interface. Further, since the roaming charges are not paid for rendering managerial, technical or consultancy services, said services cannot be construed as fees for technical series as defined under provisions of section 194J of the Act. Therefore, the assessee is not required to deduct tax at source on such roaming charges.
Assessee cannot be penalized merely on the ground that the six companies as discussed above failed to reply to the notices issued to them under section 133(6) of the Act.
Shri Neeraj Goel Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Addition on account of alleged interest income is not sustainable in the eyes of law, because the document does not mention the name of the assessee, does not bear the signature of the assesee, not in the handwriting of the assessee, documents has imply jottings of certain figures […]
It cannot be said that there was no escapement of income merely because tax was deducted at source on such income. When it is open under Explanation 3 to section 147 of the Act for the AO to reassess the income on any issue which newly comes to his notice subsequent to the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, it cannot be said that mere wrong mentioning of the provision of law relating to the other issues in the reasons recorded would vitiate the proceedings.
