Merely because the new house is constructed on a plot of land owned by the mother of the assessee will not disentitle the assesee for claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act.
Holding period for purpose of transfer u/s 2(47) was to be considered from the time of agreement to sale instead of execution of sale deed
In the instant case, nothing is on record to show that there was any malafide intention on the part of the assessee to conceal the income or furnish inaccurate particulars of income and there was an omission while filing the return of income which was rectified through challan on the very date of passing the assessment order.
Mahesh Malneedi Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) As far as the assessee is concerned, he was aware of the bank loan and also the default committed by the vendor in repaying the loan. Thus, the property was not without an encumbrance as on the date of filing of the return and there was no certainty of […]
Vodafone India Services Pvt Ltd Vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) 97. The question that we really need to address ourselves to is whether the above arrangement constitutes an ‘international transaction’. However, before we do so, it is only appropriate that we take a look at the relevant definitions under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 92 […]
In the present case, a perusal of reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings clearly show that they are against the sprit of provisions of section 147 of the Act. The AO has issued notice under section 148 of the Act on the directions of JCIT and CIT. The learned Members of the ITAT held that in our considered opinion the notice issued under section 148 of the Act was bad in law and the subsequent proceedings arising there from are vitiated.
Friends Alloys Vs ACIT (ITAT Chandigarh) From perusal of the order of the AO, it was found that the AO had not disputed that the assessee had carried out substantial expansion as provided under clause (b) of sub-section (2) read with clause (ix) of sub-section (7) of section 80-IC. Hence, the impugned order of the […]
Initial burden was on assessee to show that transactions in loose sheet were not in the nature of undisclosed investments. As assessee failed to discharge the same, AO was justified in making addition under section 69.
Shri Keshav Lila Vs. ACIT (ITAT Indore) CBDT instructions which in our view provides a guideline to the search conducting team that no seizure should be made of the jewellery and ornaments found during the course of search proceedings u/s 132 of the Act, if the same have been duly declared in the wealth tax […]
Tribunal held that the beneficial shareholders of the lender company are partners of the assessee- firm and therefore the deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) has to be assessed only in the hands of the partners and not in the hands of the assessee- firm.
