Smt Joyti Sunil Maniyar Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) In the notice issued u/s 142(1) dated 11.10.2011 a specific query was raised by the AO about the capital gain income. After that, the assessee vide reply dated 22.11.2011 conceded the fact of non-disclosing the capital gain income. From the above, it is transpired that the assessee […]
Once the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction has been proved, gift received from the brother-in-law is exempted in terms of provisions of section 56.
AO was not justified in making addition under section 68 where assessee had furnished evidences such as PAN and copies of bank statements of lenders which proved identity and creditworthiness of lenders and genuineness of impugned loan transactions.
Wherever special benches are constituted, the special benches shall, as far as possible, commence hearing within 120 days of the benches being constituted. In the cases in which the respective bench is not in a position to commence hearing of the matter within 120 days for any specific reason, e.g. directions of the Hon’ble Court above or blocking the hearing awaiting decision of a higher judicial forum, it shall record the reasons, in brief, for delay in commencement for hearing. Sincere endeavour shall be made for expeditious disposal of Special Bench cases.
Explore Amit Acharya’s case at ITAT Ahmedabad involving unexplained cash credit and disputed capital gains. Understand the key findings and decisions.
Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Patel (HUF) Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) The essential controversy in the instant case is whether deduction under 54F of the Act is available in respect of capital gains arising from sale of more than one long term capital assets, not being residential house (original asset) against the construction or purchase of one […]
Smt. Ramilaben B. Patel Vs Income Tax Officer (ITAT Ahmedabad) This tribunal in the case of Rameshbhai Somabhai Patel vs. ITO (Supra) has held that the bank account of the assessee is not considered as part of the books of accounts.The relevant part of this order of the Tribunal is already reproduced above. From the […]
Transaction charges paid to National Multi Commodity Exchange of India (NMCE) was clearly in the course of commodity business and thus, assessee was entitled to claim such expenditure as ‘business expenditure’.
Interest income earned by assessee engaged in money lending in a systematic manner had to be taxed as business income in spite of the fact that assessee was not having registration with RBI as NBFC.
Since loss arising from derivative transactions were excluded from being regarded as speculative business under section 43(5)(d) as per Explanation to section 73, therefore, the loss incurred on account of derivatives was business loss and allowed to be set off against business income.
