ITAT Bangalore

Section 54B exemption cannot be denied for absence of legal title due to pending litigation

Chinnappa Anthonappa Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)

The assessee had complied with conditions for grant of deduction under sections 54B inasmuch as he has utilised, within a period of two years from the date of transfer of capital asset, the capital gain in purchasing another land for being used for agricultural purposes, therefore, mere fact that assessee did not get legal title to the la...

Read More

Section 54F Exemption on residential house acquired abroad

Shri Rajasugumar Subramani Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)

Shri Rajasugumar Subramani Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Provision in section 54F comes w.e.f. 01.04.2015 according to which it was clarified that the residential house is to be acquired only in India meaning thereby before this amendment it was not clear as to whether the benefit of section 54F can be given to residential house acquired [&hell...

Read More

No Penalty for delay in tax audit report submission due to technical venial breach

Arka Eduserve Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)

In the instant case, the audit report was obtained within the due date prescribed u/s 44AB of the Act. The delay has occurred due to delay in filing return of income. The assessee has stated that it was under bonafide belief that the audit report could also be filed before 31.3.2015. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that t...

Read More

Section 54F exemption cannot be denied for late execution of registered deed

Kondamma Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)

Once it is demonstrated that the consideration received on transfer has been invested either in purchasing a residential house or in construction of a residential house even though the transactions are not complete in all respects and as required under the law, that would not disentitle the assessee from the benefit under Section 54F....

Read More

Ownership by registered deed not mandatory to claim section 54/54F exemption

Shri Basheer Noorullah Khan Vs CIT(A) (ITAT Bangalore)

Though assessee had not become owner of property in question because there was no registered sale deed executed by vendor, however, becoming the owner of the property in question was not required for the purpose of section 54/54F and, therefore, no deduction could be denied to assessee....

Read More

Section 54 exemption on Construction over leasehold land

Shri Shivakumar Kheny (HUF) Vs The Income Tax Officer (ITAT Bangalore)

 Requirement of section 54 in the second limb is that capital gain should be used in construction of residential house and nothing more. Assessee in the instant case was the owner of super-structure constructed by utilizing capital gain and it was clear from the lease deed by which land over which construction had been put up was given o...

Read More

Non-issue of bills does not stop accrual of income under mercantile system of accounting

M/s. Optum Health & Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)

The fact that bills were not raised did not stop accrual of income under the mercantile system of accounting. Therefore, the claim of assessee which was purely based on AS-9 was not sustainable and the revenue was justified in making the impugned addition....

Read More

if assessee complies with section 194C(6), no disallowance U/s. 40(a)(ia)

DCIT Vs Murugarajendra Oil Industry (P) Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore)

When Transport Operators furnish their PAN to the person responsible for making payments to them, the Transport Operators would be outside the purview of TDS u/s 194C and that immunity from TDS u/s. 194C(1) in relation to payments to transporters, applies transporter and non-transporter contractees alike....

Read More

Section 206AA not override provisions of section 90(2)

DCIT Vs BEML Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore)

Section 206AA does not override provisions of section 90(2) and in case of payment made to non-resident, assessee correctly applied rate of tax prescribed under concerned DTAAs and not as per section 206AA because provisions of the DTAAs were more beneficial and DTAA acquired primacy in such case....

Read More

Cash Payment to farmers for agricultural produces allowable | Section 40A(3)

Krishnasa Bhute Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)

Krishnasa Bhute Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) ITAT held that when considering Rule 6DD(e)(i) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and when the payment was made by cash exceeding Rs. 20,000/-, it was permissible if the same was paid for purchase of agricultural produces. If there are entries in the books of accounts and payment is […]...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,436)
Company Law (5,274)
Custom Duty (7,552)
DGFT (4,089)
Excise Duty (4,305)
Fema / RBI (3,938)
Finance (4,105)
Income Tax (31,589)
SEBI (3,289)
Service Tax (3,501)