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.
The assessee is engaged in agricultural and allied activity. This company is one of the group companies constituted by Shri B.Ramalinga Raju and his family members. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer called for the books of account of the assessee
Definition of ‘total income u/s 2(45) refers to section 5 which envisages ‘scope of total income’. On a reading of section 5 of the IT Act, it would be evident that as per this section ‘total income’ is of any previous year and which includes income from
On perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal in case of DCIT Vs. M/s Wockhardt Hospitals Ltd., (supra) it is to be seen that service agreement entered in case of M/s Wockhardt Hospitals Ltd., clearly establishes an employer and employee relationship since Doctors are governed
he exemption u/s 54 was not allowed as what was transferred is a residential unit with 8ft x 8 ft dimensions and holding that such structure cannot be treated as building. However, exemption u/s 54F was allowed to the extent of amount spent within six months from the date of transfer of the asset.
It is an undisputed fact that as on date, there was no developmental activity on the land which is subject matter of development agreement. The process of construction has not been even initiated and no approval for the construction of the building is obtained.
The short dispute arising for consideration in this case relates to the year of assessability of capital gains arising on the property, which was subject matter of a development agreement, i.e. whether it is assessable in the year in which the development agreement was entered
