In the given case, memebrs of JV decided to form a JV only to secure the orders and execution of the orders was to be done by one of the constituents of the JV. JV was formed for the benefit of the individual members and a business was carried on for the benefit of the businessman. There was no sub-contract relationship existed between JV partners. Accordingly, the work executed by the AMRCL was not in sub-contract. Ground raised by revenue was dismissed.
Hyderabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal recently held that interest income earned from deposits of share capital as fixed deposits in bank should be considered as capital receipt which is not taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Jyothirmoy Yamsani Vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) In the instant case, the assessment order categorically indicates that penalty is leviable on both counts and even penalty order details the nature of default on the part of the assessee, followed by a specific conclusion that the assessee has concealed income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Under […]
The learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in rejecting the contention of the appellant that since the reason on which the proceedings under section 147 ceased to exist, the assessing officer is not justified in making additions on other issues.
Where assessee failed to deposit the unutilized sales consideration under Capital Gain Account Scheme within the period specified under section 139(1) or 139(4), AO was justified in restricting the claim of deduction to the expenditure incurred upto the due date of filing return of income.
It was held that exemption under Section 54 only requires that the property should be of residential nature and the fact that the residential house consists of several independent units cannot be an impediment to grant relief under Section 54 even if such independent units were on different floors.
Sri Lal A. Khemani Vs. ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) There is no dispute that assessee had purchased shares through stock exchange as evidenced by the broker’s note and also sold through stock exchange by way of another broker’s note. Both of which contain the transaction details, time of transaction along with STT paid. There is no […]
Smt. Maniza Jumabhoy Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Hyderabad) Assessee has entered into is not a ‘sale deed’ as considered by the AO and CIT(A) but only an ‘agreement of sale cum Irrevocable General Power of Attorney’ for a property, which the Hon’ble Court has held that these three parties have no ownership […]
M/s. DSL Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) In the present case, the rents are received on a property purchased for setting up of the project and is inextricably linked to the completion of the project. Considering the fact that the assessee had taken steps to evict tenants and also paid compensation to them while getting vacant […]
Hyderabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that if the AO was satisfied with the original assessment then the re-assessment order under section 147/ 148 of the Income Tax Act passed only on the direction of the superior officers is invalid.
