Where assessee after, investing capital gain in purchase of new agricultural land within prescribed time, harbored a bona fide belief that there was not any tax liability of capital gain and substantiated his explanation with relevant evidence, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was unjustified.
DCIT Vs Gyscoal Alloys Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) Assessee had received share capital along with premium from its group concern and to prove the same, assessee had filed all the necessary details such as share applicants PAN card, audited accounts, income tax returns, confirmation, Demat statements, Inspectors inquiry report, copy of ledger account of investor entity […]
Roaming services are provided by telecom operators are in the nature of use of standard facilities, which do not require any human interface. Further, since the roaming charges are not paid for rendering managerial, technical or consultancy services, said services cannot be construed as fees for technical series as defined under provisions of section 194J of the Act. Therefore, the assessee is not required to deduct tax at source on such roaming charges.
Fall in net profit rate due to dollar rate fluctuation (currency fluctuations): additions to income deleted in Indo Colchem case by Ahmedabad ITAT
Sub Registrar Dhansura Vs DIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Appellant is a Govt. servant and ld. AR stated that they have assigned job to submit AIR to some outsources agency and sometime staff of the outsources agency become careless. In these case, appellant is a newly incumbent with the office and was not aware of the income […]
Gyanchand M. Bardia Vs. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The first dispute between the parties is qua validity of assessee’s gift claim as received from the HUF amounting to Rs. 1,02,00,000/- coming through banking channel. Both the lower authorities are of the view that an HUF does not come under the specified category of a relative in […]
Where assessee had transferred land owned by it to lessee for a long period but subsequently when the lessee company went into liquidation had transferred lease right, the same was taxable under the head Capital gains instead of Income from other sources because even though the land was transferred for a long period, the actual ownership of the land remained with assessee.
In the case between General Capital and Holding Company Pvt. Ltd vs Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that deduction under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act 1961 is allowable in the year of actual payment as well as that of getting the necessary donation receipt.
It could not have been open to the authorities below to treat the payment of Rs 18,00,000 on account of furniture and fixtures on standalone basis, and thus exclude it as a separate item rather than as a cost of the residential house so purchased. In our considered view, therefore, the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 54F by treating entire amount of Rs 78,00000 as the “cost of the residential house” purchased within specified time limit under section 54.
There is no dispute with regard to the fact that creditors do fall within the category of specified persons contemplated in section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Short question before us is, whether payment of interest at the rate of 18% to such persons on the loans availed from them is excessive or not, having regard to the fair market value of such loans.
