ACIT Vs. Head Infotech India Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Hyderabad) Assessee hosts online games and when the customers make payments through banking Gateways by way of credit or debit card of the relevant banks ( which are referred to as Gateways) and while transferring money to the assessee’s account, banks invariably retain service charges. It is […]
TPO has not given any finding on the No. of days delay in receivables. As submitted by the learned AR, the delay was less than 90 days and the industry acceptable period of average is 90 days. The Coordinate Bench of the ITAT in assessee’s own case for the A.Y 2013-14 has taken view that no adjustment is required if the delay is between 90 to 120 days.
The issue under consideration is whether the investment made on renovation of new residential house is eligible for exemption u/s 54F?
Juveria Begum Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) Section 54F of the Act only mandates that the capital gain should be invested in ‘a residential house’ within the stipulated time by way of purchase or construction. Thus, the amount spent on renovation of such residential house by an assessee according to his requirements is also allowable as […]
Bhagatram Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) is correct in considering the entire purchase as bogus purchase? ITAT states that it is also a known fact that Gold / Gold Jewellery is often purchased in the grey market in order to avoid taxes/customs duty etc., by the traders. In […]
The issue under consideration is whether the default in home loan by the owner of the property can be the reason to disallow the capital gain deduction u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
The issue under consideration is whether the Ration Card can be considered as a source of determining financial status of assessee and whether gift from person holding Ration Card of Low Economic class can betreated as unexplained Credit under section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 ?
The issue under consideration is whether the tribunal can give fresh opportunity to the assessee to submit evidence which assessee might not have been able to provide at the time of hearing?
The issue under consideration is whether the provisions of section 50C of the Act can be applied in cases where the market value of the property is reduced due to the defect in the title of the property?
whether section 50C can be invoked in respect of the right to receive compensation on compulsory acquisition of land & the TDR rights as the same would not come within the meaning of “immovable property”?
