Hon’ble Ravi Shankar Prasad, Union Minister of Law & Justice Hand Electronics & Information Technology, inaugurated Surat bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, on 1st September, 2017. Hon’ble Shri P.P.Chaudhary, Union Minister of State for Law & Justice and Electronics & Information Technology, was the Guest of Honor of the function. Hon’ble Members of Parliament Shri C. R. Paatil, Smt. Darshana Jarodsh, Dr. K. C. Patel, Shri Manuskhbhai D. Vasva, and Shri Nathubhai G. Patel were also present on the occasion.
In the instant case, the deductee has filed the return of income on 14.12.2012 and the long term capital gains resulted into capital loss which resulted into nil demand. According to the assessee, there was no tax payable by the deductee on the transaction of sale of immovable property. When there is no tax payable by the deductee on sale of land, there is no question of charging interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act, as per instruction No.2 of 2014 dated 26.2.2014 and the circulars are binding on the Departmental officers. Therefore, we hold that there is no case for charging interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act as per instruction No.2 of 2014 and accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
AO was justified in making addition under section 68 on account of unexplained cash deposits found in bank account in case having regard to the human probabilities and normal course of human conduct, explanation offered by assessee was not wholesome, credible and verifiable.
Where assessee purchased Ground Floor of the house property and had also purchased first floor of the said house property and deduction for both the ground floor and the first floor under section 54F by treating both the floors as one single residential unit thus he was entitled to became two different floors of one house property could not be treated as two different residential houses.
Reference made to DVO under section 55A on the ground that value declared by assessee, as per Government registered valuer’s report was more than FMV, was not justified as AO could make reference to DVO only when he was of the opinion that value claimed in the registered valuer’s report was less than the fair market value.
If second borrowing has really been used to repay the original loan and this fact is proved to the satisfaction of AO, interest paid on the second loan would also be allowed as deduction under section 24.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad held that exemption under section 54(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be denied to the assesse for the mere reason that the assesse has invested the capital gain in a normal term deposit account instead of Capital Gain Scheme account.
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XX, Kolkata dated 28.08.2014. Assessment was framed by ACIT, Range-3, Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide his order dated 11.01.2013 for assessment year 2007-08. The grounds raised by the Revenue per its appeal are as under
Depreciation on right to collect toll being infrastructure and not on toll road, where cost incurred for development and construction of infrastructure facility was a right in nature of intangible asset falling within purview of section 32(1)(ii). Order of AO in amortizing expenditure over period of facility and allowing the same was reversed. AO was, thus, directed to allow claim of assessee vis-a-vis depreciation on intangible asset under section 32(1)(ii).
If intention of Parliament was to include HUF prior to the said date then the amendment would have been carried out in respect of section 54B as well along with section 54. Therefore, amended provisions of section 54B were not applicable retrospectively and assessee-HUF was not entitled to exemption for the year under consideration.
