ITAT Delhi held that in view of provision of 47(v) of the Act the transaction of transfer of land from subsidiary to holding company is not covered u/s. 45 of the Act. Accordingly, when the transaction does not falls within ambit of section 45, then any claim of long term capital loss/profit cannot be allowed.
In the case of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Goel Vs National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), the issue of extending another opportunity to the assessee in ex-parte proceedings is examined. This article provides an analysis of whether a reasonable opportunity should be given to the assessee, even when an adjournment petition is rejected. The possibility of extending the opportunity of hearing in set-aside proceedings is also discussed. Read the full text of the order by ITAT Amritsar and the conclusion reached in this case.
In the case of Raghuraj Laminates Pvt Ltd vs. ITO, the ITAT Delhi has quashed the reassessment order passed without issuing a valid notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The order was deemed illegal, bad in law, and without jurisdiction.
ITAT Chennai held that provisions of section 73 doesnot apply in view of specific exclusions of the arbitrage/jobbing transactions from the purview of speculative transaction u/s 43(5) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards unexplained jewellery unsustainable as panchnama clearly mentions the fact that ownership of jewellery belongs to various people.
The recent ITAT ruling underlines that the deductions under sections 80IA/80IB should be subtracted from business profits when computing the deduction U/S. 80HHC. This is a comprehensive review of the case ITO vs Madhusudhan Industries.
ITAT Surat held that the delay in filing appeal before ld CIT(A)/ NFAC is not deliberate or intentional or gross negligence on part of assessee and hence the same is condoned.
ITAT Pune discussed the cost of acquisition of two plots allotted against compulsory acquisition of land. Matter remanded in absence of availability of figures of fair market value of two plots which is cost of acquisition in second transaction.
ITAT Delhi held that order of the ld. PCIT passed in haste without verification of factual material, as amount alleged was in Crores as against actual transactions in Lakhs, is unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that strategic investments not yielding any exempt income during the year under consideration, the same cannot form part of the average value of investment for computing disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules.
