Though capital gain utilized towards purchase of new asset before furnishing of return of income either under section 139(1) or belatedly under section 139(4) would be deemed to be sufficient compliance of section 54B(2), therefore, denial of the deduction under section 54B towards purchase of agricultural land after the due date of filing of return under section 139(1) was unjustified and liable to be set aside.
Where sundry creditors arising out of the purchases debited in the profit and loss account as revenue expenses, were added to income of assessee for want of the addresses of said creditors, that did not mean assessee had concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, so as to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c).
Skaps Industries India Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Section 90(4), in the absence of a non-obstante clause, cannot be read as a limitation to the treaty superiority under Section 90(2), we are of the considered view that an eligible assessee cannot be declined the treaty protection under section 90(2) on the ground that the […]
Shri Jafrudin Kaji Vs The ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) It is an undisputed fact that the assessee sold land for Rs.72 lakhs as evident from the sale deed. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee that the amount of cash deposits represents the sale consideration of agriculture land is without any substance. However, […]
Discounting charges are outside the purview of interest expenses, therefore, in our considered view, the question of making any disallowance on account of non-deduction of TDS on such discounting charges does not arise.
ITO Vs Upkar Retail (P.) Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) We find guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] CTR (SC) 177 : [1972] 88 ITR 192 (SC) Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down a principle that “if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are […]
Where revenue itself failed to enquire from assessee as regards the manner in which undisclosed income admitted under section 132(4) was derived, the assessee could not be held guilty of not substantiating the manner of deriving of such undisclosed income, therefore, no penalty under section 271AAA could be levied.
While computing exemption under section 54F, expenditure incurred towards vacating the new house property from tenants were includible as part of its cost, because existence of encumbrance was specified in the purchase agreement and original cost of acquisition was much lower than fair market value of the house property due to such attached illegal occupation.
ITAT held that If amended objects of the trusts are not non-genuine and charitable in nature, then mere failure on the part of the assessee to intimate this amended objects to the department would not goad the ld. Commissioner to cancel registration.
ACIT Vs Development Board (ITAT Ahmedabad) The central question involved in the present appeal is whether the expression ‘in any other case’ occurring in section 244A(1)(b) of the Act would include interest on an amount of refund resulted from reversal of excess interest charged under s.234B of the Act. As per Income Tax computation form […]
