Sponsored
    Follow Us:

ITAT Ahmedabad

Section 50C- AO can not tax the difference in the hands of the purchaser

September 15, 2010 1627 Views 0 comment Print

Capital gains-Scope of section 50C-Extension of section 50C to purchaser-Section 50C creates a legal fiction for taxing capital gains in the hands of the seller and it cannot be extended for taxing the difference between apparent consideration and valuation done by Stamp Valuation Authorities as undisclosed investment under section 69. This fiction cannot be extended any further and, therefore, cannot be invoked by AO to tax the difference in the hands of the purchaser.

Merely because for purpose of stamp duty, property is valued at higher cost, it cannot be said that assesses has made more payment than what is stated in sale deed

September 3, 2010 1222 Views 0 comment Print

These seven appeals by different assessee are arising out of order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IV, Surat in appeal Nos. CAS-IV/100-106/ 2008-09 dated 12-10-2009. The assessments were framed by ACIT, Circle-7and ITO Ward-7(2) Surat vide their different orders dated 18-12-2008, 16-12-2008 &26-12-2008 respectively for the assessment year 2006-07.

Mere fact that assessee has not stated date in appeal(s) memo and appeals were filed by scanned–signature, appeals can only say to be irregularity/ defective and same is curable one

September 1, 2010 462 Views 0 comment Print

Once the assessee has filed fresh appeal(s) memo which borne the signature in ink, date and place, etc., the CIT (Appeals) ought to have treated that defects removed.

Mere receipt of money through banking channels not sufficient to prove genuineness of its receipt as a gift

August 23, 2010 1017 Views 0 comment Print

Genuineness of the gift transactions cannot be determined without looking into the human probability aspects, surrounding circumstances such as relationship of the donor and donee and if assessee fails to establish any of these facts, the gift transaction cannot be treated as genuine.

S. 50C appliies only to capital gains in real estate transaction in respect to seller

August 19, 2010 1042 Views 0 comment Print

Section 50C creates a legal fiction for taxing capital gains in the hands of the seller and it cannot be extended for taxing the difference between apparent consideration and valuation done by Stamp Valuation Authorities as undisclosed investment u/s 69 in the hands of the purchaser.

ITAT rules on taxpayer’s option to choose initial year for claiming tax holiday for telecommunication services

August 16, 2010 618 Views 0 comment Print

The option of choosing the initial year for claiming tax holiday under the Section for a consecutive period of 10 out of 15 years (20 years in some cases) from the commencement of operations of an eligible undertaking, is intended to provide meaningful benefit to such taxpayers, since these business are capital-intensive and typically have long gestation period during which they incur losses and are not in a position to avail the profit-linked tax holiday benefit.

S. 153A order void if s. 132 search warrant in improper status. Assessee can retract admission of undisclosed income

June 4, 2010 760 Views 0 comment Print

A survey u/s 133A was conducted on 28.10.04 at the premises of a charitable trust of which the assessee was the managing trustee. The assessee admitted unaccounted income of Rs. 1.93 crores.

Deferred revenue expenditure allowable entirety in the year in which it was incurred

May 6, 2010 2876 Views 0 comment Print

For the purpose of allowability of any expenditure under the Act , what is material is the classification between the capital and revenue and the same does not recognise any concept of deferred revenue expenditure.

Section 80-1A(2) benefit available to telecommunication services undertaking for 10 consecutive years from the year of exercise of option

May 6, 2010 1591 Views 0 comment Print

We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case and the decisions cited before us. The issue before us as to whether or not the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s 80IA in terms of the provisions amended w.e.f 1.4.2000 even when the assessee had already started providing telecommunication services in the period relevant to the AY 1997-98. Before proceeding further, we may have a look at the provisions relevant to the AY 1997-98 and

S.271(1)(b) Penalty not for mere technical non-compliance but for actual or habitual defaulters

January 10, 2010 32004 Views 8 comments Print

It shows that these assessees had really intended to comply with the notices and therefore it should not be inferred that there was a default which could invite penalty u/s 271(l)(b). The ITAT Delhi Bench-G in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs. Assistant Director of Income-tax (2008) 115 TTJ (Delhi) 419

Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031