Where assessee did not deposit sale consideration in the bank account maintained under the capital gains scheme before the due date of filing of return but otherwise purchased new house within two years, as stipulated in section 54F(1), then deduction under section 54F could not be denied to assessee.
Claim of deduction accepted by the AO despite unequivocal language of the Act, in our view, is erroneous as contemplated under s. 263 of the Act. Such error on the part of the AO has caused definite prejudice to the interest of the Revenue.
Shri Rajeshkumar Navnitlal Dani Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Provision of sec. 10(5) of the Act only that reimbursement of travel concession or assistance to an employee is exempted which was incurred for travel of the individual employee or his family members to any place in India and nowhere in this clause it had been stated […]
High Court faulted the Tribunal’s decision of reducing the penalty as a ‘way to bypass the minimum limit’ and the Tribunal was in error in granting the relief, the same does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record so as to enable the Tribunal to revisit its decision
Section 50C is a deeming provision and Assessing Officer is obliged to compute capital gains by taking valuation arrived at by DVO in place of the actual consideration received by assessee, assessee is entitled to challenge correctness of DVO’s valuation before CIT(A) and ITAT. DVO has to be given an opportunity of hearing
M/s Jaylaxmi Land Developers Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmadabad) There cannot be any addition made in the hands of the partnership firm on account of the capital contributed by the partner of the firm to the firm. In case any justification is required for the source of fund in the hands of the partner, then partner […]
Retrospective amendment in law does change tax liability in respect of an income, with retrospective effect, but it cannot change tax withholding liability, with retrospective effect.
Commission paid to non-resident agent was not liable to tax under the provisions of act when the services were rendered outside India, payments were made outside India and there was no permanent establishment or business connection in India, therefore, assessee was not required to deduct TDS u/s 195(2).
ACIT Vs M/s. Bansal Ship Breakers P. Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) Any person responsible for collecting taxes (TCS) under section 206(1) need not to do so if he obtains a declaration from the buyer that he is purchasing the goods for re-use in manufacturing process or producing article or things. It does not say that such […]
Assessee was entitled to claim exemption under section 54F on gain earned on the sale of factory shed as factory shed inherently being long-term capital asset as per the provision of Section 2(42A) even if sale of factory shed was subject to short-term capital gain on the basis of deeming provision as specified under section 50.
