The issue in hand pertains to addition made on account of deemed dividend as per provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Being a deeming provision, bringing to tax sums which are not actually in the nature of income but are only deemed to be so, it is to be strictly interpreted. Section 2(22)(e) of […]
Friends Alloys Vs ACIT (ITAT Chandigarh) From perusal of the order of the AO, it was found that the AO had not disputed that the assessee had carried out substantial expansion as provided under clause (b) of sub-section (2) read with clause (ix) of sub-section (7) of section 80-IC. Hence, the impugned order of the […]
ACIT Vs. Sh. Mohinder Singh (ITAT Chandigarh) Nature of receipt of income over and above the registered sale consideration in the hands of seller The nature of receipt of the income over and above the registered sale consideration in the hands of seller would not fall under the head ‘Capital Gains’ but ‘income from other […]
With this common order we will dispose of the captioned applications of the assessee seeking stay for the recovery of outstanding tax demand for assessment year 2009-10 & 2013-14 respectively.
DCIT Vs. Sh.Vipan Guppta Prop. (ITAT Chandigarh) We find no infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in deleting the penalty levied following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s Hycron Electronics Vs. ITO in ITA No. 326/Chd/2015 relating to assessment year 2009-10. On perusal of the said order we find that […]
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT], Chandigarh bench, has held that the appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal by pointing out the defects in its form without granting an opportunity to the assessee to cure the defects.
Where assessee filed return within extended period of section 139(4) and delay was caused by reason beyond the control of assessee, liberal interpretation was to be given to procedural requirement of section 80AC and denial of deduction under section 80-IC was not, therefore, justified.
The only limitation prescribed by section 54 is that construction of new house ought to have been completed within a period of three years and said section does not prescribe any condition vis-a-vis the commencement of construction, therefore, assessee was entitled to deduction under section 54 even in respect of amount invested prior to the date of transfer of original asset.
The conditions for invoking the principle of mutuality have been recently enumerated by the Apex Court in Bangalore Club’s case (supra) wherein after considering various other pronouncements of the Supreme Court and the High Court on the subject, it has been laid down that principle of mutuality relates to the notion that a person cannot make a profit from himself.
A bare reading of sections 54 and 54F of the Act nowhere states that the surplus remaining after claiming deduction under section 54/54F on account of construction of house property undertaken in a year, would not be allowed set off against long-term capital gain earned in the succeeding year.
