M/s. Sucon India Ltd Vs JCIT (ITAT Delhi) Loss suffered by assessee on derivative transaction is not speculative loss and as such eligible to be adjusted against business income and Explanation 73 of the Income Tax Act is not attracted. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT Appellant, M/s. Sucon India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as […]
Shri Rahul Singhal Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 02/07/2018 of ld. CIT (A)-3, Jaipur for the A.Y. 2014-14. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The impugned additions and disallowances made in the order U/s 143(3) of the Act dated 29/12/2016 are bad […]
Once assessee had undisputedly not filed the return of income U/s 139(1) then AO was well within his powers and jurisdiction to issue a notice U/s 142(1) requiring assessee to furnish return of income in the prescribed form and verified in prescribed manner, therefore, the notice issued u/s 142(1) was well within the framework of procedure for assessment provided under Chapter (xiv) and and notice could not be held to be invalid on account of mere mentioning of an unnecessary section therein, i.e., section 153A..
section 2(47) laid down that transfer would include a transaction allowing possession of an immovable property in part performance of a contract of a nature referred to in Section 53A of the transfer of Property Act. In the case on hand, part performance of a contract had taken place and possession had been handed over. Thus, the claim of exemption was to be accepted as assessee had only one house property as on the date of sale of the plots of land giving rise to long-term capital gain.
Shri Govind Gangadhar Sabane Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) There is no dispute to the fact that one capital asset was sold and thereafter, new house was constructed. That both the Revenue Authorities in their respective orders have agreed that the Inspector had visited the site and has reported that residential house has been constructed consisting […]
Honda Motor Co. Ltd. Case: Where Reassessment Is Based Only On Allegation That Appellant Has PE In India, Notice Under Section 148 Cannot Sustain Once Arm’s Length Price Procedure Has Been Followed.
DCIT Vs Hema Mohanlal Divyasree (ITAT Cochin) We have carefully perused the JDA entered between the assessee and the developer. As per the JDA (in page 3 para 4), the construction should have completed and the share of build up area marked for the assessee ought to have been handed over within 36 months of obtaining necessary […]
Here it clearly states that the shares should be a property of the recipient company. To become known as a property the shares, in such a case, should be of some other company and not of its own; because own shares cannot become property as they shall be treated as stock.
Explore Amit Acharya’s case at ITAT Ahmedabad involving unexplained cash credit and disputed capital gains. Understand the key findings and decisions.
Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Patel (HUF) Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) The essential controversy in the instant case is whether deduction under 54F of the Act is available in respect of capital gains arising from sale of more than one long term capital assets, not being residential house (original asset) against the construction or purchase of one […]
