Though agricultural land sold by assessee had remained barren for a longer period and had been converted by purchaser thereof into non-agricultural land, however, AO could not give any cogent and convincing reason for disbelieving documentary and circumstantial evidence furnished by assessee prima facie establishing the land in question to be an agricultural land, he was not, therefore, justified in treating the same as capital asset.
If the subsidy is intended for meeting a portion of the cost of the assets, then such subsidy should be deducted from the actual cost, for the purpose of computing depreciation. As per Hon’ble Supreme Court, the law is that if the subsidy is asset-specific, such subsidy goes to reduce the actual cost. If the subsidy is to encourage setting up of the industry, it does not go to reduce the actual cost, even though the amount of subsidy was quantified on the basis of the percentage of the total investment made by the assessee.
Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Vs CIT-IV (ITAT Pune) Now, coming to the aspect of book profits which was considered by the Commissioner and the order of the Assessing Officer was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this regard, it may be pointed out that the case of assessee […]
Section 54F does not cast any statutory obligation on the part of assessee to file his return of income within the stipulated time period contemplated u/s 139 or 148 of the ‘Act’, as a precondition for entitling him to claim exemption under the said statutory provision.
In case of M/s. Deepak Agro Food (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with Sec. 29(8)(b) of the Act which is not having similar wordings like that of Sec. 154 (3) of the Act under which it is mandatory to issue notice. As per Section 154(3) of the Act amendment/rectification which has effect of enhancement of an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee shall not be made unless the authority concerned gives notice to the assessee of its intention to do so.
Admittedly, possession of the property was not handed over during assessment year 2008-09 and mere execution of agreement for the development of the property could not amount to transfer under section 2(47) of the Act row with section 53A of the transfer of property Act are satisfied as such there can no transfer be considered in the year under consideration.
The present appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Ahmedabad [CIT(A) in short] dated 30-9-2013 for the assessment year (AY) 2010-11 wherein penalty imposed under section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) Rs. 20 lakhs was deleted by the Commissioner (Appeals).
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -20, Mumbai dated 17.04.2014 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The only grievance of the assessee in his appeal is that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in denying the deduction u/s 54 of the Act.
Under the head Capital gains only direct expenses relatable to transfer of property are allowed as deduction. Therefore, the cancellation expenses should not be held to be incurred either for acquiring the property or for transfer of property
Merely because construction of new house was started prior to transfer of original asset, deduction under section 54F cannot be denied, if the construction was completed within three years of transfer.
