Smt. Vatsala Asthana Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Regarding the payment made by the assessee before 31/03/2014, Hon7ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Shankar Lal Saini (supra) held that, where assessee, an individual deposited unutilized sale consideration in capital gains scheme within the due date of filing of belated tax return under section […]
Any expenditure incurred for obtaining loan was allowable as revenue expenditure even if the loan was intended for acquiring a capital asset. Thus, upfront fee paid to bank was thus allowable.
Since the title in goods passed from foreign suppliers to assessee outside India at the port of shipment and AO failed to show as to how income of foreign parties was chargeable to tax in India, therefore, no income had accrued to foreign parties in India in terms of section 5 and section 9, therefore, section 195 did not apply to payments.
Since the booking of bare shell of a flat was a construction of house property and not purchase, therefore, the date of completion of construction was to be looked into which was as per provision of section 54, therefore, AO was directed to allow benefit to assessee as claimed u/s.54.
Swati Luthra Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Assessee had entered into genuine transaction of sale and purchase of shares and therefore, satisfied the conditions of Section 10(38) as no law prohibits purchase of shares in cash and it was the option of the buyer of shares to keep the shares either in Demat form or […]
Where the documentary evidences furnished by assessee clearly supported the claim of exemption under section 10(38) on account of sale of securities that assessee entered into genuine transaction of sale of shares through recognized exchange upon which STT had also been paid and there was no other evidence available on record against assessee so as to make the impugned addition under section 68, accordingly, addition was to be deleted.
Assessee was entitled to exemption under section 54 even if he had not taken possession nor the purchase deed had been executed within the period of three years because the delay in obtaining possession and getting purchase deed executed was on account of the developer and was by reason beyond the control of assessee.
Addition under section 69B of unaccounted money invested in purchase of land by assessee by paying in cash to sellers of land was justified as assessee-purchaser had no evidence to controvert the same.
CIT(A) erred in dismissing assessee’s appeal and passing a non-speaking order on each of the points which arose for his consideration, therefore, CIT(A) was directed to pass denovo order as per law, in accordance with Sections 250 and 251 for fresh disposal of appeal filed by assessee.
Where assessee had furnished relevant evidences such as copies of bank statement, demat account, share purchase documents and share certificate., etc., to prove its bogus long-term capital gain on sale of shares and no adverse material had been brought on record by AO to disprove the claim of assessee, addition made under section 68 on account of unexplained credit could not be sustained.
