Whatever rights the assessee acquired in the said plot started from 1997, during which year the substantial payment for purchase consideration was also made. The said consideration was recognized in the later registered document, which established the case of assessee of having acquired the rights way back in 1997. Accordingly, the gains arising on transfer of development rights in the hands of assessee would be assessed as ‘long-term capital gains’.
In the absence of any reasonable cause for failure of assessee in furnishing the information called for by the AO, penalty under section 271(1)(b) was rightly levied by AO for non-compliance of notice issued under section 142(1).
Revision under section 263 by PCIT was not justified as all the four issues questioned by PCIT were thoroughly examined by AO during the assessment proceedings, and after considering relevant facts and explanations furnished by assessee had chosen to accept the claim of the assessee and hence, the same could not be termed as non consideration of issues or AO had failed to carry out required enquiries, which ought to have been carried out in accordance with law. Thus, the assessment order passed by AO was neither erroneous, nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue
The assessee is engaged in the business of quarrying, processing/selling exporting of a granite block and slabs.
Disallowance of interest paid to persons who furnished Form 15 G and Form 15 H should not be made u/s 40a(ia) for non deduction of TDS as the requirement of filing of Form 15G and 15H with the prescribed authority viz., CIT was only procedural and that could not result in a disallowance u/s 40a(ia).
Various additions/disallowances made by AO were clearly beyond the scope of authority vested under s.153A owing to absence of any incriminating material or evidence deduced as a result of search in so far as completed assessments were concerned and the same was not permissible in law.
The issue under consideration is whether the expenses incurred against the retention money or unrealised income is allowed under mercantile system of accounting?
Bajrang Lal Naredi Vs ITO (ITAT Ranchi) In the instant appeal, the applicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2013 and applicable to AY 2014-15 in question. On a perusal of pre-amended provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, we gather that where an individual or HUF receives from any […]
Uday Gopal Bhaskarwar Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) ITAT explains Provisions of Clubbing of Income of Wife with Husband- Allows Losses of F&O Business of Wife to be clubbed with Income of Husband Where the spouse (husband) of an individual (wife) transfers some assets otherwise than for adequate consideration or in connection with an agreement to […]
The issue under consideration is whether remuneration paid to a partner acting in a representative capacity as karta of HUF is allowed u/s 40(b)?
