K. Vinuthna Reddy Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) From the facts of the case it is apparent that both the assessees has proximity with the company to whom they have leased the land. Further, the apprehension of the Ld. AO appears to be quite reasonable because both the assessee has received the lease rent for the […]
Assessee has not furnished before AO all necessary evidence so as to establish that land in question was agricultural land only as per provisions of sec. 2(14)(iii)(b) of I.T. Act.
Where assessee had received entire consideration and possession of the property was also handed over in the assessment year 2004-05, he would be exigible towards capital gain tax only for the assessment year 2004-05 and not for the assessment year 2007-08 when proper sale deed was executed and registered. Just because capital gain accrued to assessee has escaped tax in assessment year 2004-05, the same cannot be brought to tax subsequently in assessment year 2007-08, therefore, AO was directed to delete the addition made.
The issue under consideration is whether the AO is correct in disallowing the net interest as debited to Profit & Loss A/ c of the proprietary concern?
Error committed by the Chartered Accountant in his audit report will not alter the intention of the assessee for holding the equity shares purchased by it as investment which is evident from the statement of accounts/Balance Sheet of the assessee.
whether the Mid Day Meal supply to the poor students of the schools as per the programme of State Government is considered as commercial activity?
The issue under consideration is whether the TDS will be applicable on payment of Foreign Agency Commission?
The issue under consideration is whether the expense on electricity and water bill will convert the status of plot of land into residential property and accordingly assessee will be eligible for deduction u/s 54?
The issue under consideration is whether the payment made by the company to its employees under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) is allowed as deduction?
ITO Vs Adul Kayum Ahmed Mohd. tamboli (ITAT Mumbai) The hearing of the matter was concluded on 19/02/2020 and in terms of Rule 34(5) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, the matter was required to be pronounced within a total period of 90 days. As per sub-clause (c) of Rule 34(5), every endeavor was […]
