Exemption under section 54F is subject to the provision of sub-section (4), meaning thereby, the amount of net consideration is to be appropriated towards the purchase of new asset within one year before the date on which the transfer of the original asset took place or if not utilised for the purchase or construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income u/s 139, it shall be deposited (unutilised portion) by the assessee, before furnishing such return, in any account or in capital gain account in the bank or institution as specified in any scheme by the Central Government, by notification in the official gazette and the proof of the such deposit in the capital gains tax account shall be accompanied while filing the return.
Whether the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs.12,03,000/- in the partner’s capital account u/s 68 of the I.T.Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the assessee had no evidence to prove the identity
Read about the ITAT Ahmedabad case between DCIT and Shri Jayesh Chandulal Patel where penalty proceedings were restored for fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer.
Smt. Amita Agarwal v. ACIT (ITAT Agra) -Assessee filed her return wherein income arising from sale of shares was shown as ‘Long-term Capital gain’ – Assessing Officer, however, brought said amount to tax under head ‘Income from other sources’ – On appeal before Tribunal, Judicial Member, allowed assessee’s claim in light of overwhelming evidences produced by her to prove genuineness of transaction – Accountant Member, however, in view of order passed in case of Baijnath Agarwal v. Asstt. CIT [2010] 40 SOT 475 (Agra)(TM) took a different view
If Act authorizes a designated authority to collect tax for State, the same Act always permits the said authority to rectify any proceedings, which has resulted in double taxation. When the income of Rs. 4,28,750 has been assessed for the assessment year 2008-09, the assessment of the same amount for the impugned assessment year 2007-08 is a mistake apparent from the records. The assessing authority could have corrected it and if not, the Commissioner (Appeals) could have given a direction to rectify such a mistake apparent from the records. There is no great question of law involved in this.
Taurian Iron & Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ad. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)- In the case of Haji Aziz And Abdul Shakoor Brothers (supra) it was held that fine paid to the Custom Authorities was in fact penalty u/s 167 (8C) of the Customs Act. It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that such penalties which are incurred by an assessee in proceedings launched against him for an infraction of the law cannot be called commercial losses incurred by an assessee in carrying on his business. In the case of Rohit Pulp & Paper Industries (supra) the Deputy Collector of Customs had ordered confiscation of goods under section 111(d) of the Customs Act read with section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Order.
Chadha Sugars Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) – The facts are that the assessee claimed an expenditure of Rs. 7,80,500/-, being the fees paid to Registrar of Companies for raising authorized capital. It is the admitted position of law that the expenditure is not revenue in nature and, therefore, it is not deductible in computing the total income. It is also the admitted fact that two decisions of the Supreme Court, adverse to the assessee, held field when the return was filed.
ITO, TDS-II Vs The Thane Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. (ITAT) – The short controversy is that the assessee did not quote PAN number in TDS ereturn while uploading the e-returns. In our opinion, it is a reasonable cause. What we find that as admittedly the new system of filing e-TDS-returns is introduced. Being a new system, having a some problems with software and for that the assesse bank can not be held responsible. No where is denied by the A.O. that as claimed by the Assesse, there system error. In our opinion, it is a reasonable cause for not quoting PAN numbers in e-return of TDS. We further find that the assessee thereafter immediately filed the revised TDS ereturn and also have furnished Form no.60. n our opinion, there is a reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not quoting the PAN numbers in e-TDS return and no penalty is leviable. Accordingly, all the grounds in the revenue’s appeal are dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assesse is allowed and we delete the penalty sustained by the Ld. CIT (A).
DCIT Vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) – In the assessment order the A.O. did not accept this claim of the assessee on the ground that for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2005-06 the department had gone in appeal before the Hon’ble High Court against the decisions of Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata in this matter. Thus the A.O. disallowed an amount of Rs.l,35,87,876/- as excess depreciation claimed. On appeal ld. CIT(A ) after taking into consideration of the various documents filed by assessee before him and following the decisions of the ITAT, Kolkata from 2001-02 to 2005-06 deleted the disallowance of Rs. 1,35,87,876/- made by AO. It is further observed that the filing of appeal before the Hon’ble High Court against the decision of this Tribunal for A.Yrs.2001-02 to 2005-06 will not have any effect since the Hon’ble High Court has neither set aside the orders of the Tribunal nor granted any stay. Respectfully following the same we dismiss the appeal of the revenue.
Base year for calculation of index cost of acquisition of the shares in terms of Explanation (iii) to Section 48 of the Act, acquired by the assessee by way of inheritance (one of the modes specified in Section 49(1) of the Act) should be taken as financial year 1981-82 when such shares were acquired by the previous owner prior to 1st April, 1981. As decided by bobbay high court also in the case of CIT vs. Manjula J. Shah.
