Smt. B. Radha & Ors. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) The impugned issue to be considered is whether the reopening of assessment on the basis of so-called statement of Shri Ramalinga Raju (Satyam Computers) is warranted. As seen from the additions made, there is no live-link with the reasons recorded and the additions made. In fact, […]
In this case assessee sold a property at Rs.20 lakhs against circle rate of 89 lakhs and spent more than a crore in construction of new residential property, exemption u/s 54F was claimed but the AO allowed exemption only with reference to 20 lakhs and balance amount was assessed as capital gain.
Non consideration of proposition laid down by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Holcim India (P) Ltd., reported as (2014) 90 CCH 0081 (Delhi H.C.) is an apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal.
The law under section 51 and 56(2)(ix) provides for the taxability of forfeiture of advance money received in the hands of seller. Till AY 2014-15, the forfeited sum was deductible from the cost and even the excess of forfeited money over cost was capital receipt not taxable by virtue of Supreme Court Judgment in Travoncore Rubbers.
A perusal of the agreement and the above undisputed facts shows that till date no transfer of the property in question has been completed under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Still further, the registered sale deed has not been executed by the assessee in favour of the Bank and consequently, sale is not yet completed.
Brief facts relating to the case are that a survey 133A of the Act was conducted in the premises of the assessee on 15/10/2009 during the course of which it was found that the assessee had deducted tax amounting to Rs.15,76,219/-
The ITAT bench of Mumbai in the above cited case law held that any contingent impact on profit/loss would not take the transaction to fall within the purview of international transaction. In the present case
When the object of assessee’s business is to develop and let out the properties then even when it is also providing other facilities to tenants still the assessee’s income will be assessable as business income.
The ITAT bench of Mumbai in the above cited case held that when the assessee company in its continuing and existing business of chartered hiring of rigs imported new rigs to be moved to and installed at the site of the clients desirous of taking the same on hire for oil drilling, all the mobilization expenses which is in connection with these new rigs till these new rigs mobilization is completed and these rigs are installed at clients site and start commencing drilling of oil for the client is a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure.
In the present case also, assessee has engaged a chartered accountant to guide her in complying to statutory requirements. Therefore, when the C.A. issued a certificate opining that there is no requirement for deduction of tax at source, assessee under a bonafide belief that withholding of tax is not required did not deduct tax at source on the remittances made.
