Sakharam Bhondve Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) The issue under consideration is whether the deduction u/s 54F for reinvestment against Capital gain in the name of wife and son will be allowed or not? As per the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kamal Wahal (supra): “It also noted that a […]
The ITAT Ahmedabad has harped upon the mechanical practices adopted by the Assessing Officers to make addition u/s 68. The moot point is that a sale which already forms part of books of account cannot be added again u/s 68 due to the reasons that Sales are already recorded in the books of accounts and the addition of the same amounts to double taxation. A prejudiced view on sale cannot be drawn when purchases are accepted without any reservation. Section 68 connotate amount credits in books of account remained unexplained need to be added. Recorded sales are not unexplained cash credits.
AO was not justified in treating assessee’s transaction of purchase of agricultural land from his wife as colorable device to avoid the legitimate payment of tax on mere difference between purchase price declared by assessee vis-a-vis Jantri Value as assessee had discharged his primary onus by furnishing the necessary details to justify the cost of acquisition and now the onus was on the Revenue to bring on record the details of the cases to justify the actual prevailing market rate at the time of the purchase of land by assessee.
A perusal of sub-section (2) of section 72A read with rule 9C reveals that condition of minimum level of production is to be seen at the end of four years and in case of non-fulfillment of the same set-off of accumulated losses and unabsorbed depreciation, already claimed, would be chargeable to tax as income of the fourth year as per sub-section (3) of section 72A.
The issue under consideration is whether the issue of penalty notice u/s 271D is justified under the Act? Penalty u/s 271D shall not be levied in the case of near relatives
Sudha Eashwar Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) The assesse is claiming exemption by way of long term capital gains claimed by it to be earned on sale and purchase of Turbotech Engineering Ltd. by invoking provisions of Section 10(38) of the 1961 Act and onus is on the assessee to prove that these gains are genuine […]
The fact that bills were not raised did not stop accrual of income under the mercantile system of accounting. Therefore, the claim of assessee which was purely based on AS-9 was not sustainable and the revenue was justified in making the impugned addition.
Booking of bare shell of a flat was a case of construction of house property and not purchase, and since construction had been completed within three years of sale of original asset, assessee was duly entitled to deduction under section 54.
ITO Vs Sejal Gopalbhai Shah (ITAT Ahmedabad) The issue under consideration is whether capital gain will be taxed in the hands of general power of attorney holder with respect to land sold? ITAT states that, the assessee was just general Power of Attorney holder with respect to the lands in dispute. This fact has not […]
Dashrathbhai G. Patel Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Unlawful reference u/s Sec 142A in absence of tangible material and adopting FMV under different section 55A was in gross contradiction of law Conclusion: Since AO had merely issued reference to DVO under s.142A without any background or reasons and the Valuation Officer, in turn, had conferred within […]
