Assessee-wife was not entitled to claim and be allowed exemption under Section 54 and 54 EC on the basis that both assessee’s being husband and wife had suo motu offered rental income equally in their returns of income and their intentions were that said property was a joint property and both of them having equal share therein because as per the recitals in the purchase and registered sale deeds of the aforesaid property, assessee-husband alone was the sole legal owner of the said property to the exclusion of all others, including his wife.
These are appeals filed by two assessees who are wife and husband. One appeal in IT(IT)A No.12/Bang/2014 is by Smt.Veena Nambyar directed against the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) -4, Bangalore dt.20.2.2014, in respect of the order of assessment passed. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dt.27.12.2011.
In the wake of the decision of the Bengaluru ITAT, in the case of “The ACIT, Circle-1(2)(1) Bengaluru vs. Shri Dilip Ranjrekar, in ITA No. 858/Bang/2016, dated 10.11.2017, an intriguing question has arisen, as to whether TDS is required to be deducted by the employer company, in the case of an erstwhile employee, who has otherwise rendered a continuous service of five years, on the interest amount earned by such employee, from the date of his cessation of employment, till the date of withdrawal of the accumulated provident fund balance.
ACIT Vs. Shri K.R. Kaviraj (ITAT Bangalore) In the light of the judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (239 ITR 817) the impugned payment made for acquiring mining rights is capital expenditure and cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure. The reliance placed by the ld.CIT(A) on the […]
Health and Glow Retailing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) Assessee has taken premise on rent for which he has given interest-free refundable security deposit of Rs. 11,70,000 to the landlord. When the assessee could not continue with the possession, he claimed the entire amount back which was not given by the landlord, therefore he […]
Share premium received can be assessed as undisclosed income if (a) directors are allotted shares at par while others are allotted at premium, (b) the high premium is not justified by a valuation report, (c) the high premium is not supported by the financials, (d) based on financials the value of shares is less and no genuine investor would invest at the premium, (e) there are discrepancies & abnormal features which show transaction as “made up” to camouflage real purpose
The assessee, a company stated to be engaged in Real Estate business, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2008-09 on 30.09.2008 declaring loss of (-) Rs.6,84,051. The assessee filed a revised return on 14.10.2008 declaring loss of (-) Rs.5,23,751. The revised return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act
Initial burden was on assessee to show that transactions in loose sheet were not in the nature of undisclosed investments. As assessee failed to discharge the same, AO was justified in making addition under section 69.
In the recent landmark judgement of Texport Overseas Private Limited v. DCIT [IT(TP)A No. 1722/Bang/2017], Honorable Bangalore Tribunal held that: it would be deemed that clause (i) of Section 92BA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act”) was never been on the statute as it has been omitted w.e.f. April 01, 2017 vide Finance Act, 2017 and nothing was specified whether the proceeding initiated or action taken on this continue.
Undisputedly the assessee has not earned any exempted income. Now it is settled position of law that whenever assessee did not earn any exempt income, no dis allowance could be made u/s. 14A of the Act.
