The ITAT while dismissing the assessees appeal observed that the assessee has transferred his share of right and interest over the property in favour of his father through relinquishment deed dated 14.10.2014, which is after entering into sale agreement on 28.1.2014 and as per section 2(47)(i) of the Income Tax Act, transfer in relation to a capital asset, includes, the sale, exchange or relinquishment of assets. Therefore, the Order of AO wherein it was held that the assessee could not claim any exemption on the capital gains was upheld.
Ragavs Diagnostic & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) From the plain reading of section 69C, it is clear that when an assessee offers no explanation or the explanation offered is not satisfactory in the opinion of the AO, then the amount of such expenditure is to be taxed as income u/s. 69C […]
ITAT Bangalore held that assessee has paid money for the purpose of investment which is not disputed and therefore the provisions of Section 269ST of the Act is not applicable.
ITAT Bangalore held that no disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act could be made if no exempt income was earned by the assessee.
ITAT Bangalore held that the expenditure on account of ESOP is a revenue expenditure and had to be allowed as deduction while computing income.
ITAT Bangalore held that provision for long term service award is made on actuarial valuation and amount provided for in the books of accounts based on actuarial valuation cannot be said to be contingent.
ITAT Bangalore disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act for non-deduction of TDS for payments not qualifying as fees for technical services and not being business income taxable in India is sustainable
ITAT Bangalore held that no disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act could be made if no exempt income was earned by the assessee.
ITAT Bangalore held that expenditure for cost of improvements incurred towards capital assets is eligible for indexation benefit.
ITAT Bangalore held that invocation of provisions of section 263 justifiable as AO failed to reconcile the claim of long term capital gain exemption with the amounts furnished in Form 10DB
