We are of the opinion that the assessee has invested the sale consideration on transfer of Capital Asset in purchasing a new residential property in the name of Smt. Shailaja J who is being married widowed dependent daughter of the assessee and also legal heir of the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to grant exemption u/s. 54F of the Act on the amount invested in purchase of residential house in his daughter’s name.
We are of the view that the AO has re-opened the assessment on mere change of opinion, because it is the assessing officer who took a different view at the time of reopening of assessment, i.e., he has entertained an opinion that the family members should have transferred the gold to the assessee firm and then the assessee firm should have held the gold on its own account.
Suraj Stones Corporation Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Without issuing summons under section 131 of the Act to a party who filed confirmation, no adverse inference can be drawn by the AO. It is clear from the orders of the revenue authorities that they not made any reference to the documentary evidence filed by the […]
Nike India Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) It is imperative on the part of the A.O. to show that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relating to the assessment. Admittedly, no such allegation has been made by the A.O. in the reasons for […]
Vascular Concepts Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) For these assessment years as well, the Revenue has not established that conditions stipulated u/s 36(2) of the I.T.Act was not fulfilled with respect to any of the debts which were written off by the assessee during the previous years. Under these circumstances, we are of the view […]
N.A. Haris Vs Add. CIT (ITAT Bangalore) In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement to sale the impugned residential flats were entered into financial years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. There is no dispute for this fact. Now the contention of the assessee is that for determining guideline value by invoking the provisions of […]
R. K. Associates Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The question for consideration is as to whether the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable for computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession” or computation of income under any other heads of income also. Section 40 clearly stipulates that “Notwithstanding anything […]
Golf View Homes Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) From a perusal of the order of AO/CIT(A) it is clear that the disallowance has been made on the basis of the proviso to Sec.36(1)(iii) of the Act. There is no dispute that the interest free loans were given for the purpose of business of the Assessee. […]
Ayi Vaman Narasimha Acharya Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) Under section 45(1) of the Act, the charge on capital gain is in the year of transfer. Section 45(1) of the Act clearly lays down that any gain arising on the transfer of the capital asset effected in the previous year shall be chargeable to income tax […]
R.N. Shetty Trust Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) As per Section 153C of the Act, the Assessing Officer of searched person shall proceed against such other person on reaching satisfaction that any undisclosed income belonging to such other person over whom he has no jurisdiction then he has to transmit the seized material to the Assessing […]
