whether interest received u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land in the nature of compensation is exempt u/s 10(37) or chargeable to tax under head ‘Income from Other Sources’?
Shri Vijay Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) The main contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the Assessing Officer while making the impugned additions has exceeded his jurisdiction. That the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny issue i.e. regarding security transaction. The Assessing Officer could not find any reason […]
Smt. Asha Gandhi Vs The ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) Conclusion: Tribunal urged State to remove violations of tax laws by new assessees such as part time enterprising housewives, illiterate, semi-skilled men/women or teenagers by highlighting the concepts of agents of economic change; creation of Tax Advisory Cell; and coming out with Policy/Tax Compliance Scheme for the […]
Shri Dilpreet Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) Section 148 Conclusive proof as to escapement of income at notice stage not required At the stage of issue of notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961, the only question to be seen is whether there was relevant material, on the basis of which a reasonable […]
Assessee was not eligible for exemption from payment of MAT as per the provisions of section 115JB(6), since, admittedly, it did not qualify as a business or services rendered by an entrepreneur or developer in a unit or SEZ as per definition of the said terms in the SEZ Act.
Amount received by assessee from ‘HUF’, being its member, was a capital receipt in his hands and was not exigible to income tax as in case of individual, the HUF has not been included in the definition of relative in explanation to section 56(2) (vii) as it was not so required because in case of HUF,
Where notice under section 143(2) was not issued within the time limit prescribed in proviso to section 143(2), the assessment framed under section 143(3) pursuant to such notice was invalid and accordingly, the same was liable to be quashed.
Penalty under section 271AAB was justified as the surrender had been made on account of discrepancy /shortage in stock which had not been accounted for by assessee and the same was therefore rightly been held to qualify as “ undisclosed income” as per the definition in section 271AAB.
Surrender offered by assessee on account of undisclosed sundry debtors was purely related to business carried out by assessee, therefore, same had to be assessed as deemed income under sections 69, 69A/B/C and assessee was entitled to claim the benefit of set off of losses both current and brought forward in accordance with law against the income assessed.
Where the delay of 1 day in on-line filing of return occurred not due to any negligence of the assessee, rather, the reason for the same was beyond the control of the assessee, therefore matter was remanded back to AO to examine the limited aspect as to whether the assessee, otherwise, was entitled to claim deduction under section 80-IC of the Act and if so found eligible, AO would allow the claim accordingly.
