In deciding the exemption u/s 54F in the case of Sri M.S. Lakshmana Rao vs. DCIT, Hyderabad Tribunal held that non-compliance to condition of depositing sale proceeds in capital gain account scheme as required u/s 54 will not be so fatal to debar the assessee from getting benefit of section 54F.
ITAT Hyderabad held in Shri M.S Lakshmana Rao Vs DCIT that if the assesse had not deposited the capital gain amount under the capital gain account scheme in bank then the assesse should not be barred of the exemption of sec 54
In the case of Manikanta Concerns vs. DCIT, ITAT Hyderabad held that the shortage at the time of purchase and the shortage at the time of sale are two different issues and it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that once the assessee has claimed shortage at the time of purchase
Medravathi Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) It is observed that the assessee company as well as other thirteen land owning companies were incorporated with their main object to carry on the agricultural activities and there is no dispute about the same. In order to pursue this main objects, these companies purchased agricultural […]
Navayuga Quazigund Expressway (P)Limited V/s. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad), It was contended on behalf of the assessee that interest under S.201(1A) was computed by the assessing officer by considering part of the calendar month as full month
Though, assessee has claimed that the amount received was not in the nature of loan/advance, but, towards purchase of land in the name of company, however, assessee has not produced even a single evidence to justify the aforesaid claim.
By virtue of fiction created by section 64(IA) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the incomes of properties owned by the two minor daughters, were clubbed in the hands of the assessee since the date of purchase of the said properties.
In this scenario, the only issue is whether the amount of consideration received on transfer invested by the assessee in a flat constructed within three years would amount to construction of a residential house within the time limit of three years.
Hon’ble Hyderabad Bench has in the case of M/s. Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewels v/s DCIT in IT(SS)A No. 16/Hyd/2011 has held that Section 292BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would operate prospectively as it curtails the right of the assessee.
Hon’ble Hyderabad ITAT has in the case of Dr. G. Premalatha v/s DCIT has categorically held that the CIT(A) had no jurisdiction in appeal proceedings to call for a valuation report, which is the exclusive prerogative of the AO.
