Smt. Roopa Vs ITO (ITAT Bengalore) ITAT held that assessee’s claim for exemption u/s 54/54F of the Act in respect of 2 flats in the same residential building complex is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. K. G. […]
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 land could not be ground to deny benefit of deduction under sections 54B.
ACIT Vs. Shri Dilip Ranjrekar (ITAT Banaglore) It is apparent from the facts of the case as mentioned (along with copies of corroborative documentary evidence) and discussed above from para 7.1 to 4.4.3 of this order (Supra) that the non completion of the construction the flat by the builder within the stipulated period is beyond […]
Inatech India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) From the narration of facts with regard to the non disposal of the appeal of the Assessee, it is clear that the delay in non disposal of the appeal is not attributable to any default on the part of the assessee. The law is by now well […]
M/s. Kottaram Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (OSD) (ITAT Bangalore) At the very outset, it was submitted by ld. DR of revenue that as per para 4.2 of the assessment order for Assessment Year 2014-15 and para no. 4.3 of the assessment order for Assessment Year 2015-16, it is noted by the AO that […]
Candor Business Solutions P. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Conclusion: Where bonus has been paid to directors for the services rendered and as part of a payment of employment, deduction of the same was to be allowed u/s. 36(1)(ii). Held: AO disallowed amount of bonus to director-shareholders of the assessee company u/s. 36(1)(iii). In the […]
M/s. Innoviti Payment Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Banglore) (1) The AO can scrutinize the valuation report and the if the AO is not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, he has to record the reasons and basis for not accepting the valuation report submitted by the assessee and only thereafter, he can […]
Since assessee along with his mother and siblings entered into a JDA with M/s. S, which was a registered document, therefore, on entering into JDA, there was a ‘transfer’ as per section 2(47) and consequently capital gain was attracted.
Assessee was entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s.54F to the whole extent of investment in purchase of new asset, even though property had been purchased in the joint names of assessee, his wife and son.
Section 2(47) is containing an inclusive definition and inter alia, it provides that relinquishment of an asset or extinguishment of any right there in amounts to a transfer of a capital asset.
