Enhancement of assessee’s income on account of difference between the purchase price of the shares of NDTV limited at Rs 4 per share and the market price of those shares quoted on recognized stock exchange at Rs. 140 per share was a benefit taxable u/s 56 (2)( vii) as assessee could not justify that there was no motive of tax evasion in the same.
Since the market value of immovable property sold by assessee had to be Rs.2,60,05,348/- and the purchase consideration together with costs towards obtaining vacant property should stand at Rs.2,26,00,000/-, therefore, the long term capital gain would be Rs.34,05,348/- as per section 50C and the brokerage costs incurred on sale consideration by the purchaser could not be taken into account for the purposes of Section 50C.
M/s. Kolte Patil I-Ven Townships Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present case is with respect to addition under the head ‘income from house property’ on the 32 unsold flats/shops by the assessee. It is an undisputed fact that assessee is in the business of Civil Engineers, Builders and Developers and had in […]
When an HUF’s residential house is sold, the capital gain should be invested for the purchase of only one residential house is an incorrect proposition. After all, the HUF property is held by the members as joint tenants. The members keeping in view the future needs in event of separation, purchase more than one residential building, it cannot be said that the benefit of exemption is to be denied under s. 54(1) of the IT Act.
The interdiction in the proviso appended to section 147 puts an embargo in the exercise of power at the end of the AO in cases where scrutiny assessment has taken place and four years have expired from the end of relevant assessment year. In such cases, the assessment cannot be reopened unless it its demonstrated that income has escaped assessment on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts fully and truly in respect of his assessable income.
DCIT Vs Bhaijee Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) In this From the records, it can be clearly seen that the notice has been issued prior to the approval. Thus, reopening u/s 148 is without the approval of the designated authority and as such reassessment itself is bad and without any jurisdiction. The mandatory conditions of […]
Assessee was diagnosed with Cancer in December, 2017 and the ld. CIT(A) passed the order on 20.03.2018, which is subsequent to the diagnosis of the illness, needless to mention that treatment of cancer is very painful and it is not possible to focus on other issues when he was under the treatment and therefore in our opinion, there is a reasonable cause for not fling the appeal within the due period and therefore we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay and accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
In the absence of any permission received from Pr. CIT or the CIT, there was no merit in the order of AO in making addition on an issue which was not the basis for selection of case under CASS.
M/s. Key Components (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) it is clear that there is a total non-application of mind on the part of the A.O. while recording the reasons for reopening of the assessment. He has recorded incorrect amount which escaped assessment. His conclusion was merely based on observations and information received from DIT […]
As a matter of fact, all infrastructure and process required for provision of bandwith services was always used and under the control of RJIPL, and the same was never given either to the assessee or to any other person availing the said services. We are persuaded to subscribe to the observations of the CIT(A) that as the process involved to provide the bandwith services was not a secret i.e IPR in the process was not owned/registered in the name of RJIPL, but was a standard commercial process that was followed by the industry players, therefore, the same could not be classified as a secret process which would have been required for characterizing the aforesaid payment made by the assessee to RJIPL as royalty under the India-Singapore DTAA.
