On perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal in case of DCIT Vs. M/s Wockhardt Hospitals Ltd., (supra) it is to be seen that service agreement entered in case of M/s Wockhardt Hospitals Ltd., clearly establishes an employer and employee relationship since Doctors are governed
CIT (Appeals) has inferred of the hotel/s, where the assessee’s employees stayed, as also serving as their work place. The communications between them and the head office, which is again a part of their work, has again admittedly been carried out in India and, as stated
Moot point arising in the instant case, not addressed by the first appellate authority, i.e., as what constitutes a ‘purchase’ for the purposes of section 54F or, for that matter, the other para materia provisions.
Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Tribunal (Agra) in case of Rajeev Kumar Agarwal vs CIT (ITA No. 337/Agra/2013) pronounced on 29th May 2013 wherein the AO disallowed interest payments made without deducting TDS under Section 194A of the Act.
Clause (4) of Sec. 54 clearly mention that the amount of net consideration which is not appropriated by the assessee towards the construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income u/s. 139, shall be deposited by him before furnishing such return (such deposit being made in any case not later than the due date applicable in the case of the assessee for furnishing the return of income under sub section (1) of Sec. 139).
he exemption u/s 54 was not allowed as what was transferred is a residential unit with 8ft x 8 ft dimensions and holding that such structure cannot be treated as building. However, exemption u/s 54F was allowed to the extent of amount spent within six months from the date of transfer of the asset.
ITAT Delhi ruling in Divya Devi vs. ACIT: Jewellery rebate as per CBDT’s Instruction No. 1916. Download full text of the order. Date: 16-05-2014.
Coming to a concomitant situation that if booking of flats does not tantamount to ownership of the house then how come the assessee claim that by booking a flat it has acquired ‘new house’ and becomes entitle for this exemption.
For the year under consideration the assessee has specifically raised a point before the AO that 97.82% of the investment is in the subsidiary companies and joint venture companies and, therefore, no expenditure was incurred for maintaining the portfolio on these investments
“As evident from a plain look at the ground of appeal, the actual grievance of the appellant is not on merits but on the legal issue regarding limitations on the powers of the CIT(A) on the ground that post 1st June 2001
