The issue under consideration is whether depreciation on ‘imported software’ will be considered as royalty and liable for disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for want of TDS?
person working in software industry cannot be termed as ‘Wages’. In our view there is no distinction sought to be made in the provisions of Sec.80JJAA of the Act
Whether AO is correct in considering the gift received by the assessee as unexplained gift and made addition u/s 68 when the Gift was received through banking channels?
Whether the AO is correct in disallowing expenses incurred on developing and maintaining land in connection with real estate activity?
ITAT are of the view that u/s. 68 of the Act, it is only the credit entry appearing in the books of account of an assessee for the relevant previous year, that can be treated as unexplained cash credit in the absence of proper explanation by the assessee
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.
Additions in respect of which penalty was confirmed has been accepted by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, leading to substantial question of law. Thus when Hon’ble High Court admitted substantial question of law on additions, it becomes apparent that issue is certainly debatable. In such circumstances penalty cannot be levied under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act.
The issue under consideration is whether the capital gain will be chargeable in case of JDA even if Permissive possession was not handed over to builder during the concerned year?
Shri A. R. Prasad Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) When we compare the terms of possession in the said case as per Para 4 of the tribunal order reproduced above and the terms of JDA in the present case as reproduced above, we find that in both cases, the possession is handed over to the builder […]
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.
