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 on lease to assessee, therefore, deduction under sections 54 could not be disallowed.
The issue under consideration is whether the addition u/s 69 for Cash deposited in assessee’s bank account being Power of Attorney holder for sale of property belong to her father is justified in law?
Whether the penalty levied by CIT(A) u/s 272A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is justified in law? Penalty u/s 272A is not justified for Assessee having exempt income u/s 10(23C).
Assessee was not precluded from raising the issue of jurisdiction under section 153C, merely because it did not object to the same during assessment proceedings and participating therein, as the issue was purely a legal issue and could be raised at any time in the course of appellate proceedings.
Hirsh Bracelet India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) Section 50 of the Act is a special provision for computation of capital gains in case of depreciable assets and is applicable only to capital assets forming part of Block of Assets on which depreciation has been allowed under the Act. and also only for the […]
M/s. Wipro Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) In this case relief was allowed by learned CIT (A) in respect of levy of surcharge and cess by directing the AO that surcharge and cess should be levied only in the cases where the non resident vendors are residents of countries with which DTAA allows withholding rate […]
The issue under consideration is whether surcharge and education cess should be levied only in the cases where the non-resident vendors are residents of countries with which the DTAA allows withholding rate of more than 11.33%?
Shri Sanmathi Ambanna Vs JCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In penalty proceedings, the assessee, inter alia, submitted that the transactions in question cannot be strictly construed as loan but rather are in the nature of gifts from his father-in-law Shri. G. P. Padmakumar because of the fact that the person giving the money and the person accepting […]
AO was not justified in holding that losses incurred by assessee due to selling goods at less than cost price to e-commerce operators was to create marketing intangibles assets and therefore the loss to the extent it was created due to predatory pricing should be regarded as capital expenditure incurred by assessee and should be disallowed because where a trader transferred his goods to another trader at a price less than the market price and the transaction was a bonafide one, the taxing authority could not take into account the market price of those goods, ignoring the books results of assessee and resorting to a process of estimating total income of assessee in the manner in which he did, what could be taxed was only income that accrues or arises as laid down in Sec.5, nothing beyond Sec.5 could be brought to tax.
As CIT(E) rejected assessee’s application for registration ex-parte under section 12AA without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee in terms of section 12AA(1)(b)(ii), therefore, the matter was restored back to the file of the CIT (Exemptions) for fresh examination and adjudication.
