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.
Loss on the transactions in castor oil and castor seeds entered between sister concerns could not be allowed to be set-off against business income and LTCG on sale of land as these were speculative transactions as assessee had not obtained the delivery of goods of alleged trading since the purchased item was sold on the same day in the same quantity and also that there was no transportation expenses claimed by assessee.
DCIT (E) Vs Shree Bhartimaiya Memorial Foundation (ITAT Ahmedabad) The solitary question that arises for adjudication whether the trust has incurred deficit due to excess spending on the object of the trust during the particular year and whether excess expenditure incurred in earlier years by the trust could be allowed to be set off against […]
Relinquishment deed was made in financial year 2008-09. Thus, if any tax was required to be levied, then the same was to be levied in assessment year 2009-10, i.e., next year. Hence, assessee was entitled to benefit under section 54.
DCIT (E) Vs Baroda Cricket Association (ITAT Ahmedabad) Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India provides certain protection in this regard which states that no person can be convicted for any offence except for a violation of a law in force at the time of action charged an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty […]
Section 153A: Completed assessment cannot interfered absence discovery incriminating material during search
Where assessee did not deposit sale consideration in the bank account maintained under the capital gains scheme before the due date of filing of return but otherwise purchased new house within two years, as stipulated in section 54F(1), then deduction under section 54F could not be denied to assessee.
Claim of deduction accepted by the AO despite unequivocal language of the Act, in our view, is erroneous as contemplated under s. 263 of the Act. Such error on the part of the AO has caused definite prejudice to the interest of the Revenue.
Shri Rajeshkumar Navnitlal Dani Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Provision of sec. 10(5) of the Act only that reimbursement of travel concession or assistance to an employee is exempted which was incurred for travel of the individual employee or his family members to any place in India and nowhere in this clause it had been stated […]
High Court faulted the Tribunal’s decision of reducing the penalty as a ‘way to bypass the minimum limit’ and the Tribunal was in error in granting the relief, the same does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record so as to enable the Tribunal to revisit its decision
