Utilisation of capital gains within time specified would entitle assessee to claim deduction under section 54, notwithstanding fact that new asset was registered beyond period specified under section 54, which according to assessee was beyond her control and was to be liberally construed.
ITAT Bangalore held that provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act are not applicable to the remittance made in India by non-resident.
ITAT Bangalore held that as the additional income offered is considered as business income, remuneration u/s. 40(b)(v) of the Income Tax Act is available on the same.
ITAT Bangalore held that rental income is inseparably connected with the business carried on by the assessee and emanate directly from the business of the undertaking. Accordingly, rental income derived by the assessee from Cargo Agents, Airlines, Banks etc., is derived from the cargo business and eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA. The addition is deleted.
ITAT Bangalore held that cash deposited on account of cash sales during demonetization period cannot be added as unexplained under section 68 of the Income Tax Act as AO didn’t rejected the books of accounts nor brough anything contrary on records to show that cash sales is not the source for cash deposit.
ITAT Bangalore held that HUF was disrupted / partitioned as on the date of assessment order and hence the assessment order in the status of HUF is invalid.
ITAT Bangalore held that the deposit of gold jewellery by family members of a partner in the partnership firm would be treated as the stock in trade of the firm as agreement between the firm and the partners provides that the jewellery given by the partner can be used by the firm and sold by the firm.
ITAT Bangalore held that order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is invalid as the same does not have any Document Identification Number.
ITAT Bangalore held that the employees contribution to PF and ESI should be remitted before the due date as per explanation to section 36(1)(va) of Income Tax Act for it to be allowable under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Bangalore held that irrevocable possession and irrevocable power of attorney to transfer/ sell to the developer makes it clear that absolute possession of land is given to the developer and the amounts to transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act.
