Sri Shashi Parvatha Reddy Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderbad) Coming to the second category of shares i.e. the original and the bonus shares transferred to the assessee by the overseas investors without any cost attached to them, we find that the original shares were initially purchased or acquired by the overseas investors by way of inward […]
What was common to both the provisos to section 40(a)(ia) and section 210(1) was that as long as the payee/resident had filed its return of income disclosing the payment received by and in which the income earned by it was embedded and had also paid tax on such income, the assessee would not be treated as a person in default.
Hyderabad Cricket Association is not engaged in activities in nature of trade and commerce or business and therefore, eligible to enjoy the benefit of section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad bench said last week while disposing appeals filed by both HCA and the department.
Assessee was entitled to deduction u/s 54F of the Act in respect of more than one residential flats received by virtue of a development agreement. We find that this issue is now fairly covered by the decision of various High Courts in favour of the assessee.
There is also no finding that the assessee has misused or not used the donations for any other purpose than the purpose for which they have been given i.e., for educational purpose. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the exemption under section 11 of the Act cannot be denied in toto to the assessee with regard to the voluntary donations received by the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad held that exemption under section 54(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be denied to the assesse for the mere reason that the assesse has invested the capital gain in a normal term deposit account instead of Capital Gain Scheme account.
DCIT Vs. Delta Constructions Ltd. (ITAT Hyderabad) Assessee contends that in order to invoke the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) it has to be shown that the payment made by the assessee is attracted by the provisions of section 194H of the Act i.e., there is liability to deduct tax at source on the bank guarantee […]
Keerthi Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) The assessee has paid compounding fine to regularize the building plan. The payment of such compounding fine is penalty in the nature of an offence or which is prohibited by law. We have noticed that the decision on this count is divided among the various courts. The […]
In the present case, the assessee has disclosed all the particulars before completion of the assessment u/s 143(3), though the details were filed in the scrutiny proceeding.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income on the basis of the provisional accounts audited by a Chartered Accountant but did not file the audited accounts. The AO, therefore, issued a notice u/s 271D for levy of penalty for non filing of the audit report. The assessee explained […]
