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.
i) The term recovery is comprehensive and includes adjustment thereby reducing the demand; (ii) It will be specious & illogical for the Revenue to contend that if an issue is decided in favour of the assessee giving rise to a refund in an earlier year, that refund can be adjusted u/s 245, on account of the demand on the same issue in a subsequent year.
The issue under consideration is whether depreciation on ‘imported software’ will be considered as royalty and liable for disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for want of TDS?
person working in software industry cannot be termed as ‘Wages’. In our view there is no distinction sought to be made in the provisions of Sec.80JJAA of the Act
Whether AO is correct in considering the gift received by the assessee as unexplained gift and made addition u/s 68 when the Gift was received through banking channels?
Whether the AO is correct in disallowing expenses incurred on developing and maintaining land in connection with real estate activity?
ITAT are of the view that u/s. 68 of the Act, it is only the credit entry appearing in the books of account of an assessee for the relevant previous year, that can be treated as unexplained cash credit in the absence of proper explanation by the assessee
Once it is demonstrated that the consideration received on transfer has been invested either in purchasing a residential house or in construction of a residential house even though the transactions are not complete in all respects and as required under the law, that would not disentitle the assessee from the benefit under Section 54F.
Additions in respect of which penalty was confirmed has been accepted by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, leading to substantial question of law. Thus when Hon’ble High Court admitted substantial question of law on additions, it becomes apparent that issue is certainly debatable. In such circumstances penalty cannot be levied under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act.
The issue under consideration is whether the capital gain will be chargeable in case of JDA even if Permissive possession was not handed over to builder during the concerned year?
