CIT should not stop merely on finding that the order was erroneous but also had to establish that the order of AO was prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Thus, revision could not be made in such a case and the order of AO was restored.
Taking into account the amount mentioned in Form 26AS it could not be said that the assessee had concealed amount or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. However, penalty was restricted to the tax sought to be evaded on the amount of commission income not disclosed by assessee.
K. Vijaya Lakshmi Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) The development agreement implied that assessee did permit the developer to enter into the premises and to do all the necessary things for construction of apartments. Some of the agreement holders also sold the flats in semi-finished condition or in fully developed condition, whereas few like assessee retained […]
Nekkanti Sea Foods Ltd Vs CIT (ITAT Hyderabad) It is settled position of law that the provisions of section 14A can be applied to quantify the expenses in relation to exempt income. Since the exempt income is Nil, section 14A will not apply. The Rule 8D can be applied only when there is difficulty in […]
Nutan Malpani Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) We noticed that when the assessee is having a regular business connection with the company and in that process, assessee receives or pays certain advances, they can be considered as ‘trade advances’ and not otherwise. In the given case, certain transactions which were treated by the Assessing Officer as […]
Jayashree Kothari Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) Sec. 50C(2) enables the Assessing Officer to make a reference to the Valuation Officer. Whenever a reference is made by the AO to the Valuation Officer, such reference has to be construed as a reference made under sec. 16A(1) of the Wealth-tax Act. We have also carefully gone through […]
Sahara States – Hyderabad Vs Additional CIT (ITAT Hyderabad) As rightly observed by the Tribunal, though the assessee has completed the project by 31.03.2008 and had requested the local authorities for issuance of completion certificate since there was no provision under the GHMC Act of 1985 for issuance of completion certificate, the same was not […]
M/s. Chavva Estates Private Vs Wealth Tax Officer (ITAT Hyderabad) We find that as long as the assessee owns the commercial asset, which is capable of being put to productive use, the said commercial asset is not exigible to Wealth Tax. In this case, the assessee along with two other companies owns the theatre but […]
M/s. Terra Infra Development Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) Provisions for levy of fee in certain cases has been brought into the Statute book w.e.f. 1.7.2012, it has been brought under the purview of section 200A only w.e.f. 1.6.2015. Therefore, as rightly held by the Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Sonalac Paintings & […]
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.
