The issue under consideration is that whether the assessee having business of land trading can show capital gains from arising out of transfer of land and claim exemption u/s 54F?
Adani Enterprise Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) We notice that no time limit has been prescribed for passing order under s.206C of the Act. The CIT(A) has assumed that in the absence of statutory time limit provided, the provisions of Section 201(3) of the Act providing time limit for deduction of tax at source can […]
Since the market value of immovable property sold by assessee had to be Rs.2,60,05,348/- and the purchase consideration together with costs towards obtaining vacant property should stand at Rs.2,26,00,000/-, therefore, the long term capital gain would be Rs.34,05,348/- as per section 50C and the brokerage costs incurred on sale consideration by the purchaser could not be taken into account for the purposes of Section 50C.
The interdiction in the proviso appended to section 147 puts an embargo in the exercise of power at the end of the AO in cases where scrutiny assessment has taken place and four years have expired from the end of relevant assessment year. In such cases, the assessment cannot be reopened unless it its demonstrated that income has escaped assessment on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts fully and truly in respect of his assessable income.
From ‘date of allotment’ of capital asset, i.e., 15-2-2007 the holding period was more than 36 months on sale of property on 4-8-2010 as such, revenue authorities were not justified in treating the holding period from date of registration of property, i.e., 30-9-2009 and treating it as short-term capital gains, deduction under section 54F was, therefore, allowable.
Loss on the transactions in castor oil and castor seeds entered between sister concerns could not be allowed to be set-off against business income and LTCG on sale of land as these were speculative transactions as assessee had not obtained the delivery of goods of alleged trading since the purchased item was sold on the same day in the same quantity and also that there was no transportation expenses claimed by assessee.
DCIT (E) Vs Shree Bhartimaiya Memorial Foundation (ITAT Ahmedabad) The solitary question that arises for adjudication whether the trust has incurred deficit due to excess spending on the object of the trust during the particular year and whether excess expenditure incurred in earlier years by the trust could be allowed to be set off against […]
Relinquishment deed was made in financial year 2008-09. Thus, if any tax was required to be levied, then the same was to be levied in assessment year 2009-10, i.e., next year. Hence, assessee was entitled to benefit under section 54.
DCIT (E) Vs Baroda Cricket Association (ITAT Ahmedabad) Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India provides certain protection in this regard which states that no person can be convicted for any offence except for a violation of a law in force at the time of action charged an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty […]
Section 153A: Completed assessment cannot interfered absence discovery incriminating material during search
