Shri Rajasugumar Subramani Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Provision in section 54F comes w.e.f. 01.04.2015 according to which it was clarified that the residential house is to be acquired only in India meaning thereby before this amendment it was not clear as to whether the benefit of section 54F can be given to residential house acquired […]
The issue under consideration is whether the issue of penalty notice u/s 271D is justified under the Act? Penalty u/s 271D shall not be levied in the case of near relatives
The fact that bills were not raised did not stop accrual of income under the mercantile system of accounting. Therefore, the claim of assessee which was purely based on AS-9 was not sustainable and the revenue was justified in making the impugned addition.
whether deduction u/s 54 can be denied if assessee initially purchased land with a view to put up construction but later changed his mind and instead, purchased a residential house?
When Transport Operators furnish their PAN to the person responsible for making payments to them, the Transport Operators would be outside the purview of TDS u/s 194C and that immunity from TDS u/s. 194C(1) in relation to payments to transporters, applies transporter and non-transporter contractees alike.
Section 206AA does not override provisions of section 90(2) and in case of payment made to non-resident, assessee correctly applied rate of tax prescribed under concerned DTAAs and not as per section 206AA because provisions of the DTAAs were more beneficial and DTAA acquired primacy in such case.
In the instant case, the audit report was obtained within the due date prescribed u/s 44AB of the Act. The delay has occurred due to delay in filing return of income. The assessee has stated that it was under bonafide belief that the audit report could also be filed before 31.3.2015. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that the audit report was available with the assessing officer before he completed the assessment.
Krishnasa Bhute Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) ITAT held that when considering Rule 6DD(e)(i) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and when the payment was made by cash exceeding Rs. 20,000/-, it was permissible if the same was paid for purchase of agricultural produces. If there are entries in the books of accounts and payment is […]
TDS return filed beyond time cannot be declared as non est in law and that the CIT(A) does not have powers of enhancement in an appeal against an order under section 200A. The CIT(A) cannot travel beyond the subject-matter of the appeal, which was as to whether fee under section 234E can be levied or not; and not the question, whether the return of TDS filed by the assessee was non est in law? The CIT(A) had no power in the appeal in the present case to declare return of TDS filed by the assessee as non est in law.
Consideration of 14 flats for giving up related rights in favour of developer was received by assessee within a period of three years from the date of JDA. In such circumstances, concerned flats assumed the character of ‘short-term’ capital asset and gain on such transfer was rightly assessed by AO as STCG.
