By virtue of JDA, assessee was parting with a portion of its land and in consideration thereof, was receiving built-up area on the land retained by it which was a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) however, AO was directed to re-compute the capital gain again by considering only elements which were necessary for the construction of the building as the cost of construction, and not the entire expenditure of the builder, including the compensation agreed to be paid to K and also the finance charges etc., which were not relevant for computing the cost of the construction.
Understand why rental advance write-off isn’t capital loss but a business expense. ITAT Hyderabad rules in favor of Apollo Munich Health Ins. Co. Ltd.
M/s. Telukunta Chandra Mohan Rao (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderbad) The question raised is, in the case of ‘JDA’ transaction, at what point of time, capital gain arises. It is settled law that in the year in which the possession of the property is passed on to the developer is the year in which the […]
M/s. Sai Krishna Agencies Medak Vs Asstt. (ITAT Hyderabad) We find that the AO had made some enquiries from the customers to find out if they received any discounts from the assessee, but the assessee has not been confronted with the findings of such an ex-parte enquiry report. This is in clear violation of principles of […]
Sri Srikanth Marru Hyderabad Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) There is a nexus between the loan taken from the LIC and the premium paid for the Keyman Insurance Policy. Since the Keyman Insurance Policy is for the benefit to the assessee, it was held that the same is taxable as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the […]
Agarwal Global Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) We observe that even if we consider the selling price @ 30,675.56 by M/s Gautham Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. and the same was purchased from the assessee @ 25,000/- per MT with tax, the difference would be Rs. 4,500/- per MT. We gave opportunity to both […]
Kalyan Constructions Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) Provisions of Section 40A(3) mention that where an assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payments were made to a person otherwise than by way of crossed cheque or account payee cheque, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of such expenditure. It is humbly submitted that when the […]
Shri Tej Narayan Agarwal Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Hyderabad) Amount received and repaid by the assessee subsequently is not a loan. This is a transaction done on behalf of his children to accommodate tham in obtaining DD’s without charges and cannot be considered as taking of loan or repayment of loan in cash. Facts of […]
Century Seeds Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) With reference to the finding of the Ld. CIT that the Form 3CM and 3CL are not filed which are mandatory, it was the submission that assessee has filed Form 3CM in letter format issued by DSIR granting renewal of recognition up to 3 1.03.2015 by the […]
DCIT Vs Aurobindo Pharma Limited (ITAT Hyderabad) We have considered the rival contentions and perused the case law placed on record. In the decision of Concept Pharmaceuticals Ltd (supra) the Coordinate Bench did not allow the expenditure spent outside the R & D unit but the Bench has not considered the explanation introduced with reference to ‘Clinical Trials’. […]
