Assessee filed return of income declaring total income of 3,90,370/- on 3.10.2007. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the Act) on 31.12.2009 determining the total income at 6,90,370/-. Subsequently, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act for not considering the disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of IT Act.
It is not discernable whether the interest paid for the acquisition of the impugned property has been claimed by the assessee under Chapter IVC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, namely ‘income from house property’. If the assessee had already claimed interest under the head income from house property, the same interest cannot be capitalized and added to the cost of acquisition of the property.
Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently held that it is need not be to compute Minimum Alternate Tax when the assessee maintaining books of accounts under the regulatory act instead of companies act under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act 1961.
M/s. Kshitij Interiors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) From the record we found that commission was paid to Mr. Bhawarlal Sharma, whole time Director of the Company, for the services rendered by him to the Company. The Director has rendered technical services to the assessee company. The commission so paid is for the services […]
The assessee further contended that additions cannot be made towards purchases merely on the basis of third party information ignoring the evidences filed to justify purchases. The assessee further contended before the lower authorities that the assessing officer neither pointed out any error or discrepancy in the books of account nor did make out any case of sales made outside the books of account.
DCIT Vs Shri Subhash Gandhi (ITAT Amritsar) An order passed u/s 127 of the Act is not appealable before the Ld. CIT(A). Since the first appellate authority has no jurisdiction to decide the validity or otherwise of an order passed u/s 127, transferring the jurisdiction from one Assessing Officer (AO) to another, it is, but, […]
Merely because assessee-company had claimed deduction of expenditure without deducting TDS on interest payment, which was not accepted by Revenue, by itself, would not attract the levy of penalty.
As amount disallowed under section 43B would become profits of business in the computation of income under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”. Consequently, if the amounts disallowed were pertaining to the projects on which the claim under section 80-IA was made, the same had to be allowed as profits get increased to that extent. Therefore, AO was directed to examine the working of profits and allow the deduction.
Assessee has invested more than the sale proceeds of the industrial gala for purchase of two flats. Respectfully following the decision of Karnataka High Court,we do not find any merit for decline of assessee’s claim of deduction u/s.54 for investment in two flats out of sale proceeds of long term capital gains within the stipulated period provided in the Act.
Provisions of section 50C of the Act are not applicable in the case of the assessee as the capital asset involved here was not land or building but it is a right to purchase a building (shop).
