On agricultural Land no tax is payable when the compensation/enhanced compensation is received by the assessee as their land were agricultural land. The compensation was received in respect of agricultural land belonging to the assessee which had been acquired by the state government.
It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer admitted the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 54F(1)(b) in respect of investment on long term capital gain but instead of taking actual sale consideration received, has adopted the figure of sale consideration by invoking Section 50C. This is not in accordance with the provision of Section 50C which has created a deeming fiction. Section 54F is an exemption provision and it has given its applicability in itself, therefore, Section 50C will not come under picture.
It has been held in various decisions that action u/s. 263 can be taken only when there is lack of enquiry or no enquiry. However, in the instant case necessary enquiry was conducted. Therefore, merely because the Ld. Pr. CIT does not agree with the manner of enquiry conducted by the AO he cannot substitute his own reasons and held the order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
In the given case, the first issue raised by the assessee is relates to the disallowance of business expenses from the remuneration earned by the assessee from the partnership firm assessed as business income u/s. 28 (v) of the IT Act, 1961.
ITAT do not find any merit in this ground of appeal of the assessee. Accordingly we hold that assessee trust is not eligible for standard deduction at the rate of 30% u/s 24 (a) of the act, out of the rental income chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee.
The issue under consideration is whether the exemption u/s 54 can be denied only with the reason that the new property has been purchased in the name of son and not in the name of that assessee.
Therefore, according to the Finance Act, 2015, prior to 01.06.2015, your good self had no authority to levy fee, if any, under Section 234E of the Act and thus levy of fee under Section 234E of the Act while processing the statement is beyond the scope of Section 200A of the Act.
Since there was no material available before AO that assessee had paid anything more than what was mentioned in the sale deed, therefore, no addition was warranted in the instant case by invoking the provisions of section 69.
Addition by AO under section 41(1) as liability of ‘Trade Payables’ written off was not justified as the balance-sheets filed by assessee were neither signed by the Auditor nor by the Director and, therefore, the same were not reliable and assessee had failed to produce any confirmation to the effect that the assessee received payment from M/s. O as interest free unsecured loan.
Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) We are of the considered view that firstly, the assessee was not required to deduct TDS as the payment of EDC was not made out of any statutory and contractual liability to HUDA with whom the assessee has no privity of contract; secondly, the assessee has reasonable […]
