Indian Medical Association Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Having regard to the plain language of the above provision, it is clear that a charitable or religious trust is entitled to accumulate twenty-five per cent, of its income derived from property held under trust. For the present purposes, the donations the assessee received, would constitute its property […]
Magic Share Traders Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The issue under consideration is whether a company dealing in ‘derivatives’ could be considered as engaged in speculative business as per Section 73 or not? In the present case, the assessee seeks set off of losses arising from derivative losses as non-speculative business losses. The Revenue had […]
CBDT Circular dated 8th August 2019, enhancing the monetary limits for Dept appeals, states that the modifications shall come into effect from the date of issue of the Circular, it must be interpreted to mean that the enhanced limits apply not only to appeals to be filed in future but also to appeals pending for disposal as on now.
The issue under consideration is that the Income of interest received on advances should be considered as income from other sources or not?
Where the existing company acquired all the assets and liabilities of the partnership firms in the manner as provided under section 47(xiii) then the same would not be considered as transfer and there was no requirement under the provisions of section 47(xiii) that the firms should be converted into the company.
The issue under consideration is that whether the assessee having business of land trading can show capital gains from arising out of transfer of land and claim exemption u/s 54F?
Adani Enterprise Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) We notice that no time limit has been prescribed for passing order under s.206C of the Act. The CIT(A) has assumed that in the absence of statutory time limit provided, the provisions of Section 201(3) of the Act providing time limit for deduction of tax at source can […]
Since the market value of immovable property sold by assessee had to be Rs.2,60,05,348/- and the purchase consideration together with costs towards obtaining vacant property should stand at Rs.2,26,00,000/-, therefore, the long term capital gain would be Rs.34,05,348/- as per section 50C and the brokerage costs incurred on sale consideration by the purchaser could not be taken into account for the purposes of Section 50C.
The interdiction in the proviso appended to section 147 puts an embargo in the exercise of power at the end of the AO in cases where scrutiny assessment has taken place and four years have expired from the end of relevant assessment year. In such cases, the assessment cannot be reopened unless it its demonstrated that income has escaped assessment on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts fully and truly in respect of his assessable income.
From ‘date of allotment’ of capital asset, i.e., 15-2-2007 the holding period was more than 36 months on sale of property on 4-8-2010 as such, revenue authorities were not justified in treating the holding period from date of registration of property, i.e., 30-9-2009 and treating it as short-term capital gains, deduction under section 54F was, therefore, allowable.
