Sponsored
    Follow Us:

All ITAT

ALP Adjustment of International Transaction Restricted to AEs

June 6, 2018 3024 Views 0 comment Print

Adjustment on account of arm’s length price (ALP) of international transaction is restricted only to the extent of international transaction with associated enterprises (AE).

Reopening by Reappraisal of Material Available on record During Original Assessment Proceedings is invalid

June 6, 2018 660 Views 0 comment Print

Re–Appreciation / Reappraisal Of The Material Available On Record During The Original Assessment Proceedings: Reopening Of Assessment By Forming Of Opinion That Income Has Escaped Assessment By AO, Not Allowable:

Exemption U/s. 54F cannot be denied for investment of amount in Mutual Funds before Purchase of property

June 6, 2018 1464 Views 0 comment Print

In terms of Section 54F the assessee is only entitled to proportionate exemption vis-a-vis, cost of the original asset and the cost of the new assets. In the light of the above, the AO is directed to recomputed the capital gains exemption.

Addition on the basis of bounced cheques- ITAT Slams Revenue officials

June 6, 2018 1734 Views 0 comment Print

CIT Vs Smt. Shashikala Ramkumar (ITAT Hyderabad) First of all it is not understandable how an AO can make addition on the bounced cheques. It is a general banking practice that once cheques are presented for clearance, bank credits out of its own funds, subject to clearance and when cheques are not cleared, the amounts […]

Exemption U/s. 54F allowed for Investment in purchase of Villa routed through mutual funds

June 6, 2018 1401 Views 0 comment Print

ACIT Vs Shri. Sunil Bandacharya Joshi (ITAT Bengaluru) In the present case, the capital asset was sold on 26.02.2011. The capital asset was purchased on 31.03.2011 and before the purchase of the capital asset the amount was deposited in mutual funds. Therefore in the considered opinion of the bench, before the date of filing of […]

Penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) not sustainable if specific charge not mentioned

June 5, 2018 3030 Views 0 comment Print

When penalty proceedings are sought to be initiated by the revenue under section 271(1)(c), the specific ground, i.e., either concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof has to be spelt out in clear terms. Otherwise, an assessee would not have proper opportunity to put forth his defence. Therefore, penalty order was not sustainable in the absence of specific charge mentioned by AO.

Streedhan in the form of jewellery received during span of 20-25 yeas cannot be said to be unexplained investment U/s. 69A

June 5, 2018 9846 Views 0 comment Print

That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, New Delhi has erred in deciding the appellate proceedings by confirming the additions made by the learned Assessing Officer without providing a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to submit and substantiate his claim on the additions made by the Learned Assessing.

Expenditure on removal of encumbrance includible in cost of new house property

June 5, 2018 3324 Views 0 comment Print

While computing exemption under section 54F, expenditure incurred towards vacating the new house property from tenants were includible as part of its cost, because existence of encumbrance was specified in the purchase agreement and original cost of acquisition was much lower than fair market value of the house property due to such attached illegal occupation.

Section 54 exemption available on amount utilized for purchase of new asset before due date of filing return of income but after filing of ROI

June 5, 2018 17916 Views 1 comment Print

Shri Arun Kumar Jain Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) The A.O. noted that as per Section 54(2) of the I.T. Act, the amount of capital gain, which is not utilized by him for the purchase of new asset before the date of furnishing the ITR under section 139, shall be deposited by him, before furnishing such […]

Only on the basis of AIR information no addition can be made

June 5, 2018 5658 Views 0 comment Print

Aforesaid appeals by the Revenue are against separate orders of learned Commissioner (Appeals)–2, Mumbai, in respect of three different assessees pertaining to assessment years 2008–09, 2010–11 and 2011–12.

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031