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.
Vodafone India Services Pvt Ltd Vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) 97. The question that we really need to address ourselves to is whether the above arrangement constitutes an ‘international transaction’. However, before we do so, it is only appropriate that we take a look at the relevant definitions under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 92 […]
In the case of The Income-tax Officer vs M/s. Shree Kastbhanjan Dev Developers, the Ahmedabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) proclaimed in its recent order that firm cannot be assessed for unexplained cash credits in respect of capital introduction by its partner.
The ITAT bench comprising Pramod Kumar (AM) and S. S. Godara (JM) recently confirmed that the sale consideration on agricultural land after its conversion to non-agricultural Land constitutes business income and therefore, section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be applicable to such cases.
Right now we are dealing with an employee who is giving up his source of livelihood under the threat of dislocation, and the hyper technical interpretations based on technicalities about the wordings in the settlement deed, signed by him under these compelling circumstances, is being taken as the understanding about assessee’ s actual conduct;
Impugned addition u/s.50C(2) of the Act mandates reference to DVO in case an assessee contests the jantri price in question to be higher than fair market value of the relevant capital asset.
Ahmedabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) comprising of Judicial Member S.S.Godara and Accountant Member Pramod Kumar has deleted the addition under the Income Tax Act in respect of unutilized CENVAT credit.
Shri Dron Sureshkumar Rao Vs. ITO (ITAT Ahemdabad) F&O business carried out through recognized stock exchange cannot be treated as speculative loss in view of the exceptions carried out under s.43(5) of the Act. As per clause(d) of first proviso to section 43(5) of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2005 with effect from […]
