In this case assessee sold a property at Rs.20 lakhs against circle rate of 89 lakhs and spent more than a crore in construction of new residential property, exemption u/s 54F was claimed but the AO allowed exemption only with reference to 20 lakhs and balance amount was assessed as capital gain.
When the object of assessee’s business is to develop and let out the properties then even when it is also providing other facilities to tenants still the assessee’s income will be assessable as business income.
As per sec.115JB (2A), the tax credit shall be the difference of tax paid for any AY under 115JB(1) and the amount of tax payable on his total income computed in accordance with the other provisions of this Act.
AO’s opinion that since TDS made u/s. 194-I, incomes are to be assessed under head ‘income from house property’ can not be accepted. Moreover, even if assessee has let out property but, when the Memorandum of Association permits the business of letting out of properties as such, the income cannot be brought to tax as ‘income from house property’
Section 50C will get attracted only when there exists difference on the sale consideration and assessed value for the purpose of stamp duty by the authority of a state government. Where there is no material evidence that the assessee had received more than the fixed component from the developer,
ITAT Hyderabad held In the case of Shri Mohd. Imran Baig & others vs. ITO that it is now settled in favour of the assessee by the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeev Lal and Smt. Shantilal Motilal V/s. CIT (365 ITR 389)
The ITAT Hyderabad in the case of Shri G. Mahesh Babu vs. DCIT held that if any material gathered by AO proposed to be utilized in the course of assessment proceedings then it is the duty of AO to inform the assessee about the same and provide an opportunity to be heard.
ITAT Hyderabad upholds AMD R&D’s plea on depreciation impact in transfer pricing. Infosys, L&T, Mindtree excluded. Get insights into the ruling.
In the case of S.L. Shiva Raj Vs. DCIT Hyderabad Bench of ITAT uphold the penalty order by holding that the penalty is levied with reference to original return of income and not with reference to the assessment made consequent to the disclosure by assessee.
ITAT Hyderabad held in M/s DQ Entertainment (International) Ltd Vs ACIT that if the effect of expenses has been given in the balance sheet then the upward TP adjustment could not be made because the same had not been charged to P&L account and so same could not be be added to the income of the assessee.
