Sama Om Reddy Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) Ld.Counsel for the assessee had reiterated the submissions made by the assessee before the AO and has submitted that by virtue of the Agreement of Sale cum GPA and handing over of the possession, the assessee had transferred the property in favour of the Vendee/GPA-holder, Shri A.Manikyam. It […]
Shakti Hormann Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) We find that the assessee is not benefitting in any way by not filing the appeal in time before the Tribunal. The assessee has explained the reasons as misplacement of papers by one of the office staff. This is one of the possible reasons for not being […]
Thus, it is seen that there is actually no sale of property by the assessees before us and the Sale Deed has been executed by the original owners through GPA holders to the children of assessees. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no transfer of property by the assessees in fact it is acquisition of property by the assessees in the names of their children and it is not the case of transfer or gain on sale of property.
The issue under consideration is whether in case of real estate, tax liability will be arise when land was sold or when same was contributed for development under JDA?
Manne Hareesh Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, it was observed by the Ld. AO that the assessee has debited in his P & L Account an amount of Rs. 2,40,000 towards Accounting Charges. On query, it was explained by the assessee that the outstanding amount of Rs. 2,40,000 was […]
Naveen Kumar Kaparthy Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) In the instant case, when the books of account are not maintained, the AO did not initiate any proceedings for not maintaining the books of account. The AO obviously satisfied that the books of account were not maintained for good and sufficient reasons. When the AO accepted the […]
The issue under consideration is whether the land purchased by the assessee as agricultural land & whether the income from such sale is business income or capital gains?
Though AO had issued notice under section 148 on 26-3-2014, i.e., within period of six years from the end of relevant assessment year, however, it was returned unserved by postal authorities and even notice by affixture was also served on 4-4-2014 and there was no report of AO containing names and addresses of witnesses having identified the property, therefore, in the absence of section 148 notice served within stipulated period, reassessment proceedings were invalid.
The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) is correct in charging depreciation at the rate of 30% on wheel loaders and graders?
: Where there existed reasonable cause for the assessee in accepting the loans in cash and particularly as the loans were repaid by way of RTGS, i.e., via banking channels, penalty levied by AO under section 271D was deleted.
