Follow Us:

All ITAT

Due date’ U/s. 54F is due date for filing return U/s. 139(1) and not U/s. 139(4)

March 7, 2014 8218 Views 0 comment Print

A bare reading of section 54F clearly shows that the assessee is entitled for exemption in case he / she constructs a residential house within a period of three years after the sale of the capital asset. However, sub clause (4) of section 54F clearly says that the unutilized portion of the net sale consideration which is otherwise liable for capital gain tax shall be deposited in the capital gain account scheme within the period of due date for filing return of income u/s 139.

Quality & lavishness of construction is not incriminating material

March 2, 2014 2260 Views 0 comment Print

Agra ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs. Shri Yogendra Kumar Singhal has held that Quality & lavishness of construction is not incriminating material. Reference cannot be made to the Valuation Officer in the absence of incriminating material/document found during the course of search

Re-appreciation of seized material in subsequent proceedings by the AO is unjustified

March 2, 2014 1772 Views 0 comment Print

Hon’ble ITAT Agra in the case of ACIT V/s. Kalyani Chaturvedi held that Re-appreciation of seized material in subsequent proceedings by the AO is unjustified and quashed the Re-assessment Order. Hon’ble ITAT has held as under

S. 80-IB(10) – Limit on extent of commercial area applies only to projects approved after 01.04.2005

March 2, 2014 1733 Views 0 comment Print

Condition of limiting commercial establishment/shops to 2000 sq.ft, which has come into force w.e.f. 1.4.2005 would be applicable for the project approved on or after 1.4.2005 and where the approval of the project was prior to 31.3.2005, the amended provision would have no application for those projects.

Assessee entitled to adjustment of seized cash against advance tax liability

February 28, 2014 5780 Views 0 comment Print

Hon,ble ITAT Agra has held in the case of ACIT Vs. Sunil C Gupta that Cash seized to be adjusted against advance tax liability. Explanation-2 to Section 132B of the Act enacted with effect from 1st June 2013. Hon’ble ITAT has upheld the observations of ld CIT(A) which are as under

In Real Estate Broking Business passing of Commission is normal Practice

February 24, 2014 1805 Views 0 comment Print

ACIT vs. Shri Damodar Dass Batra (ITAT Delhi) – The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,23,263/- made by the A.O. without considering the fact that these commission expenses are bogus and fictitious and could not be fully substantiated by the assessee.

S. 54F Investment can be made from amount other than the sale consideration

February 24, 2014 3836 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Ahemdabad has held in the case DCIT Vs. Shri Radhakant M. Tripathy that The very fact that the legislature has allowed investment in new property one year prior to the date of transfer establishes in no uncertain terms that it need not be the sale

Litigation & electricity charges allowable in Capital Gain Calculation if for improvement of the property

February 24, 2014 7872 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Delhi has held in the case of Smiti Golyan Vs. ITO that As per provisions of sec. 48 of the I.T. Act in case of acquisition of the property by way of gift or inheritance the cost of acquisition of the property will be the same as in the hands of the original owner/ transferor/donor.

Penalty u/s 271D cannot be levied for cash deposited in bank by company director for making urgent payments to suppliers

February 16, 2014 4001 Views 0 comment Print

Assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing of Casting. During the course of assessment proceedings AO noticed that Assessee has received cash loans on various days aggregating to Rs 8,89,000/- from Shri Ramusingh Badoria, the Director, of the Assessee.

S. 41(1) Merely because liabilities were outstanding for last many years, it cannot be said that said liabilities ceased to exist

February 16, 2014 2082 Views 0 comment Print

The Tribunal was justified in taking the view that the assessee had continued to show the admitted liabilities in its balance sheet, the same could not be treated as cessation of liabilities. Merely because the liabilities were outstanding for last many years, it could not be inferred that the said liabilities has ceased to exist.

Search Post by Date
June 2026
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930