There are two pre-conditions for charging the income as income from house property under section 22 of the Act. Firstly, the assessee must be the owner of the property. Also, the property must not be occupied by the assessee for the purposes of his business or In other words, the property should be a residential property.
Ralhan Construction Company Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Regarding disallowance out of vehicle expenses of Rs.1,03,295/-, it is observed that the depreciation of Rs.49093/- is included in it. The depreciation is fixed expenditure in nature whether it is used exclusively for the business or partially for personal use. Thus, the element of some personal use has […]
Shri Sanmathi Ambanna Vs JCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In penalty proceedings, the assessee, inter alia, submitted that the transactions in question cannot be strictly construed as loan but rather are in the nature of gifts from his father-in-law Shri. G. P. Padmakumar because of the fact that the person giving the money and the person accepting […]
Citi Centre Premises Co-Op. Society Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) The issue in dispute in that case as per the Para reproduced from the Tribunal’s order above is regarding rent received from Reliance Telecom and in that case also, the assessee claimed a deduction u/s. 24 (a) of Rs. 1.65 Lakhs being 30% of such […]
Shree Shiv Vankeshawar Educational & Social Welfare Trust Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Admittedly the assessee has received a donation of INR 16265000/– from 1038 individuals and ld CIT (A) has noted that same is credited to the income and expenditure account of the assessee, However ld AO has noted that same is credited as Corpus […]
Assessee had incurred only office expenditure and no expenditure relating to transportation of goods such as loading, unloading charge etc., has been debited, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee actually engaged himself not in the transportation business, but only facilitating or arranging transportation for various parties and he is a mere lorry booking agent. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the assessee cannot be held as the person responsible for deduction of tax at source and to the facts of the case the provisions under section 194C of the Act have no application.
From ‘date of allotment’ of capital asset, i.e., 15-2-2007 the holding period was more than 36 months on sale of property on 4-8-2010 as such, revenue authorities were not justified in treating the holding period from date of registration of property, i.e., 30-9-2009 and treating it as short-term capital gains, deduction under section 54F was, therefore, allowable.
ACIT Vs Ashwin S. Bhalekar Beamon Chambers (ITAT Mumbai) Claim of the assessee that extinguishment of rights in the capital asset is a transfer of capital asset and capital gains and consequent allowance of claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act. The facts clearly show that the extinguishment of assessee’s right in Flat […]
Elsevier Information Systems GmbH Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Whether the subscription fee can be treated as fees for technical services. As discussed earlier, it is evident that the assessee has collated data from various journals and articles and put them in a structured manner in the database to make it more user friendly and beneficial […]
Shiv Raj Sharma Shiksha Samiti Bilaspur Vs CIT (ITAT Lucknow) It is well settled position of law that at the time of granting approval under Section 80G of the Act, what is to be examined is the object of the trust and so far as the aspect of income is concerned, the same can be […]
