A sum of Rs.7 lakhs, shown to have been received as gift from Shri Jamaluddin Sheik Fareed, was treated as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not furnished confirmation letter from the party.
Dheeraj Amin Vs. ACIT (ITAT Banglore),- In this case ITAT examined the issue that where an assessee entered into an land development agreement by holding land as stock-in-trade, the expected business profits arose as a result of agreement can be taxed as income from capital gain.
Section 194C of the I.T. Act provide that any person responsible for paying any sum to any resident for carrying out any work (including supply of labour) for carrying out any work, in pursuance of a contract between the contractor and a specified person, shall, at the time of credit of such sum to the account of the contractor
Assessee engaged in the business of real estate and construction had filed its return for AY; 2009-10 declaring an income of Rs.55,45,092/-and for AY: 2010-11 and an income of Rs.8,07,253/-. During the course of assessment proceedings
Hon’ble Bangalore ITAT has in the case of Shri G.N.Mohan Raju,v/s ITO in ITA No.242 & 243(Bang) 2013 has held that notice u/s 143(2) issued prior to filing of return in response to notice u/s 147 is invalid, even if return is filed late.
Admittedly, the undisputed fact is that the assessee in the case on hand, has not deducted tax at source on the payments made to Shri Uday Kumar Shetty amounting to Rs.1,53,78,795/-. As submitted by the ld.AR, as far as the payments made by the assessee to Shri Uday Kumar Shetty
Authorised Representative submitted that as per section 54F(1), the only condition required to be satisfied for the assessee to avail the exemption thereunder was that the assessee should within a period of one year before or two years after the date of transfer
It is clear from the order of the CIT(A) that the assessee had commenced construction of the building within a period of three years from the date on which the property on the transfer of which capital gain arose.
It is not in dispute that Mrs. Shyamala Vijai and Mrs. Poornima Shivaram were entitled to half share each over the property that was sold to the appellant. In fact, as we have already seen, the sale deed clearly acknowledges the receipt of sale consideration of Rs.1 .20 crore by both the vendors
conditions for grant of exemption up to Rs.15,000 per employee towards medical reimbursement paid by the Assessee satisfies conditions contemplated by the proviso (v) to Sec.1 7(2) of the Act, can the AO deny the relief under the proviso (v) to Sec.17(2) of the Act?
