Yokogawa India Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bnagalore) Admittedly the impugned assessment order passed by the Ld.AO under section 143 (3) read with section 144C is in violation mandatory provisions under section 144C(10) and (13) of the Act by not passing the order in pursuance of and in conformity with the directions of DRP issued under […]
Smt. Anasuya Basi Reddy Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment order had made addition of Rs.50,000 as unexplained cash credits in the bank account of the assessee. The said amount has been deposited in Karnataka Bank saving bank account on 07.04.2007 (cash deposit). Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee had […]
Prestige Estates Projects Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Banglore) Now the issue before us is with regard to whether the amount paid by the assessee towards interest free security deposit to various land owners whether it constitutes as “Consideration” in terms of Transfer of Immovable Property. In the present case, as per JDA cum General Power […]
Prestige Estates Projects Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) In our opinion, even if it is advance payment, it is not linked to the transfer of immovable property as enumerated in Section 194-IA of the Act, since the condition laid down in Section 2(47)(v) of the Act was not complied with within the meaning of Section […]
Armatic Engineering (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) Regarding the issue of applicability of section 50C of the Act, the assessee objected for adopting value of 50C as per guidance value, at the time of assessment, a letter requesting for reference to the valuation itself was also made by letter dated 19.03.2015 addressed to the […]
Addition of amount representing 15% of sale proceeds deducted by the Monetary committee from e-auction sale of mineral stock belonging to assessee and which was contributed to Special Purpose Vehicle, as per the direction given by Hon’ble Supreme Court was justified as the same constituted trading receipts in the hands of assessee, but at the same time it was allowable as deduction u/s 37(1).
AO, accordingly, took the view that each of the unit is separate house. Since deduction u/s 54F of the Act is not permitted, if the assessee is having more than one house property, the AO rejected the claim for deduction u/s 54F of the Act.
Karan Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The assessee has explained that Rs.92,54,462 is out of previous withdrawals and sale of garments and pleaded that it is to be excluded from the taxation. The assessee has not furnished any evidence to establish the nexus between the earlier withdrawals and deposits into various bank accounts. In such […]
D.S. Suresh vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) In the present case, the addition is based on the diary jottings found during the course of search action in the case of RNSIL on 16.02.2012. We have carefully gone through the diary jottings recorded earlier part of this order. It contains the entry No.5 – MLA Tarikere Rs.27 […]
We are of the opinion that the assessee has invested the sale consideration on transfer of Capital Asset in purchasing a new residential property in the name of Smt. Shailaja J who is being married widowed dependent daughter of the assessee and also legal heir of the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to grant exemption u/s. 54F of the Act on the amount invested in purchase of residential house in his daughter’s name.
