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.
Penalty u/s. 271B is attracted for failure to get accounts audited u/s. 44AB. Even though the law prescribes the levy of penalty, in case of default, the same is not automatic as provisions of Section 273B gives relief, when there is a reasonable cause.
Where there was estimation of business income, disallowance and consequential addition of revenue expenditure was not sustainable, in view of decision in Indwell Constructions v. CIT (1998) 232 ITR 776 (AP-HC). Since AO already had made estimation of income at 5% after rejection of books of account of assessee, no further disallowance of business expenditure could be made by AO.
A reassessment order cannot be passed without compliance with the mandatory requirement of notice u/s 143(2) being issued as the requirement of issuance of such notice is a jurisdictional one and section 292BB cannot cure jurisdictional error.
ITA No. 202/Hyd/2015 is the appeal filed by M/s. Sree Nagendra Constructions for the assessment year 2011-12, while ITA No. 167/Hyd/2015 is the appeal filed by the Revenue against the relief granted to M/s. Sree Nagendra Constructions for the assessment year 2009-10.
