ACIT Vs. Sh. Vineet Kumar Kapila (ITAT Delhi) ITAT held that booking of flat with the builder has to be treated as construction of flat by the assessee and hence period of three years would apply for construction of new house from the date of transfer of long term capital asset. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has […]
Once assessee had invested sale proceeds of existing asset for the purpose of construction of new house within the time period specified under section 54F he could not be denied the benefit under the section, even if the assessee finally could not construct the new house within the specified period of three years.
At the outset, Learned A. R. submitted that assessee is running a school and had been claiming exemption u/s 10(23C)(iii) and now the assessee had applied for registration u/s 12AA which the CIT (Exemptions) has refused relying on the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act.
Refund under section 244A(1)(b) of the Act on self assessment tax is to be paid from the date of payment of self assessment tax till the date of grant of refund.
Dis allowance under section 40(a)(ia) on the ground that the assessee had failed to deduct the tax at source on payment made was not justified as the recipient had already paid the taxes on the sources of income and due certificate was also furnished by the assessee.
Understand the scope of Section 153A in the case of Anurag Dalmia Vs DCIT. Analysis of unabated assessments, incriminating material, and additions made post-search.
The Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has ruled that date of possession is not material fact for deciding the period of holding to Compute Short Term or Long Term Capital Gain.
Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), recently upheld the book-value based taxation of partner on capital contribution of immovable property in the case of a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) and proclaimed in its recently published order.
Centaur Mercantile P. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) It is undisputed that the assessee has booked bogus purchases thereby inflating work-in-progress. Hence, it is clear that the assessee was owner of undisclosed income during the year. It was because of the system of accounting followed by the assessee being percentage completion method, that there was […]
Scope of Section 254(2) to rectify mistake apparent from record is very limited and tribunal cannot review its own decisions within limited scope of Section 254(2) unless there is a mistake apparent from records neither it is shown that tribunal order is perverse not sustainable in the eyes of law.
