Where assessee had purchased new residential house utilizing own funds lying in his saving bank account, deduction under section 54F could not be denied on the allegation that assessee did not utilize capital gains for investment purpose because source of utilization of fund is irrelevant for claiming benefit of deduction under section 54F.
Merely the payment of investigation charges to the chartered accountant firm was made by the bank on behalf of the assessee did not mean that the transaction was covered under the provisions of section 194A read with section 2(28A). As such the assessee was liable to deduct the TDS under section 194J and thus, assessee was not eligible for deduction for the expenses due to non-deduction of TDS.
Income from purchase and sale of shares was liable to be taxed under the capital gain instead of income under the head business and profession as the frequency, magnitude of transaction in a systematic manner could not be the criteria to hold that assessee was engaged in the business activity of shares.
Mere fall in GP rate could not be the ground for making in-depth inquiry. As per section 145(3), books could be rejected only in the situation where AO was not satisfied about the correctness / completeness of the accounts of the assessee.
Provision for interest liability which was accrued but not provided for in books of account would be deductible under section 36(1)(iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Smt. Rashmi Mujumdar Vs DCIT (ITAT Indore) We are surprised to note that the Ld.CIT(A) did not allowed the claim of silver articles weighing 609 grams and 280 grams valuing Rs.24,639/- and Rs.9856/-. CBDT instruction No.1916 dated 11.5.1994, CBDT directs the income tax authorities conducting the search not to seize the jewellery ornaments found during […]
ssessment made by AO in the name of the legal heir without issuing notice u/ 148 was not valid as the notice under section 148 was required to be issued to a correct person and not to a dead person and the same was not a merely a procedural requirement but was a condition precedent to the impugned notice being valid in law.
Shri Sanjay Gurudasmal Chawla Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s. 24(b) of the Act for the reason that the assessee claimed such deduction only by way of revised computation in the course of the assessment proceedings. However, this claim of the assessee was entertained by the […]
Shri Suresh Shivlal Bhasin Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) As regards imposition of penalty on the addition made on account of notional house property income, it goes without saying that in reality the assessee has not earned any income from house property. The Assessing Officer himself has observed that the addition made on account of income […]
In the matter f Issue of Share at High Premium AO should not resort to rely on circumstantial evidence or on test of human probabilities but on factual evidence of passing of benefit to the shareholders/directors. Hence ITAT remanded the matter back to AO to re-assess whether the assessee was used as a vehicle to pass on the benefit to the shareholder / director.
