It is an admitted fact that the assessee has changed the method of depreciation from straight line method to written down value method. Deprecation has been calculated in accordance with the new method from the date of assets coming into use.
Sri Sivani Educational Society Vs. ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam) Chit fund business is governed by the principles of mutuality and contribution to a chit fund is contribution to oneself on the principle of mutuality and hence, it is not an investment as contemplated by section 13(1)(d) read with section 11(5) of Income Tax Act, 1961. As […]
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra), has held that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders whose names are given to the AO then the department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessment in accordance with law but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee company.
It is a fact that the assessee is not required to prove the source of source of the amount found credited in the accounts of loan creditors as held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dwarik Dwarikadhish Investment (P.) Ltd. (supra) and CIT vs. Diamond Products Ltd. (supra).
The Assessing Officer as well as Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) has failed to determine the correctly the hawala Income. The appellant has issued Bills i.e. Sales Bills to the commercial world i.e. the needy persons. Who has paid the appellant the Hawala Commission.
Issue for consideration is in relation to allowing deduction under sec. 54 of the Act in respect of the whole of the amount invested by the assessee in the purchase of residential house. The assessee purchased residential property at C-602, The Residency, Ardee City, Gurgaon in joint name with his wife Smt. Ritu Verma and claimed deduction under sec. 54 of the Act in respect of amount of Rs. 80,00,000/- invested in residential property.
It is an undisputed fact that as on date, there was no developmental activity on the land which is subject matter of development agreement. The process of construction has not been even initiated and no approval for the construction of the building is obtained.
The short dispute arising for consideration in this case relates to the year of assessability of capital gains arising on the property, which was subject matter of a development agreement, i.e. whether it is assessable in the year in which the development agreement was entered
The sole issue before us is whether the building in question constructed by the assessee on which exemption u/s 54F of the Act has been claimed is a residential building as claimed by the assessee or a building constructed for commercial use.
The difference arises on two counts. Firstly, the date from which the period of six months is to be reckoned. While the assessee contends it to be as 10.03.2008, i.e., the date of receipt of the consideration for transfer (of the long term capital asset)
