Assessee who had contributed land and engaged in the development of housing project with developer for development of the land was eligible for claiming deduction under section 80-IB(10) as both owner as well as developer were eligible for deduction under section 80-IB(10).
Assessee was not entitled to claim long term capital gain as exempt u/s 10(38) and the same was deemed to be income under section 69A as it was revealed that purchase and sale of shares were arranged transactions by assessee to create bogus profit in the garb of tax exempt long term capital gain by well organised network of entry providers with the sole motive to sell such entries to enable the beneficiary to account for the undisclosed income for a consideration or commission.
JCIT Vs Ms Flipkart India Private Limited (ITAT Bangalore) Learned DR was unable to explain the relevance of the documents now sought to be filed before us for deciding the issue that was for consideration before the AO. As we have already mentioned these documents were neither the basis of assessment or the basis of […]
In the case before us was entitled to claim exemption u/s. 54 to the extent he had invested towards the purchase of the new residential property under consideration upto the date of filing of his revised return of income under Sec. 139(5) i. e. on 15. 11. 2014.
HC arrived at a correct conclusion by setting aside the disallowance under section 14 A of the Act in respect of the dividend earned on the shares held as stock in trade, because such shares were held during the business activity of the assessee and it is only by a quirk of fate that when the investee company declared dividend, those shares were held by the assessee, though the assessee has to ultimately trade those shares by selling them to earn profits.
Revenue share based licence fee held to be allowable expense under section 37(1), merely because the Revenue has not accepted the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and an SLP has been filed against the said order, the same cannot be a ground to disallow the expenditure unless and until the same is reversed or stayed by the Supreme Court
he assessment order passed in the name of non-existent entity, i.e., Amdocs Business Services (P) Ltd. was invalid and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were vitiated. The assessment made in the name of non-existent company was, therefore, invalid and unsustainable in the eye of law.
Escorts Skill Development Vs CIT (Exemptions) (ITAT Delhi) Merely because of the fact that the applicant company has been established to comply with the CSR obligations, the registration u/s 12AA of the Act cannot be denied, particularly when CSR activities are also charitable activities as defined under the Act. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT […]
ITO Vs Smt. Jaya Deepak Bhavnani (ITAT Mumbai) Legal fiction created in Section 50 is to deem capital gain as short term capital gain and not to deem an asset as short term capital asset and therefore it cannot be said that Section 50 converts long term capital asset into short term capital asset and […]
CIT(Appeals) had no power in the appeal in the present case to declare the return of TDS filed by the assessee as non est in law. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the conclusion of the CIT(Appeals) holding that return of TDS filed by the assessee is non est in law is not valid in the eyes of law and the said direction is directed to be deleted and the order of the CIT(A) to this extent is held to be bad in law.
