Penalty u/s 271D could not be imposed on assessee for advances against sale of flats and cash receipts received from the promoters through their respective current accounts as nothing had been brought on record by Revenue to show that the receipts were superfluous in nature and not for the business of assessee.
Mere execution of power of attorney could not be considered to be transfer of property. For transfer of property, assessee had to enter into an agreement for sale either by himself or through power of attorney agent and also hand over the physical possession of the property as contemplated under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act.
Merely because the assessee was not able to generate desired agricultural income from the said land and thus, it sold the said land within one year of its purchase, would not change the character of agricultural land to a non-agricultural land. Consequently, the assessee would be entitled to claim the benefit of exemption under section 10(1).
Partnership firm can own assets only in the name of the partners. In the case of the assessee firm, the car is owned in the name of the partner of the firm. If the car is purchased from the resource of the firm or the purchase consideration is credited to the partner’s current account or capital account then it shall be construed that the firm is the owner of the car.
Assessee-producer having film production unit entitled for income tax deduction under section 80IB as assessee was running a production house and each new project for a new film, could not be considered as split up or reconstruction of the business already in existence.
Partners’ remuneration from firm should not be subject to the application of presumptive interest rate under section 44AD as the same could not be construed as gross receipts or turnover of a business independently carried on by a partner.
M/s. Kanchipuram Vaniga Vaisya-Dharma Paripalana Sangam Vs CIT (E) (ITAT Chennai) Admittedly, this application seeking registration u/s.12AA of the Act, was filed on 10.07.2014. The Sub-section 2 of Sec. 12AA stipulates that an order granting or refusing the registration under Clause-B of Sub-Sec.2 shall be passed before the expiry of the six months from the […]
Smt. Annakkalanjiam Mathivanan Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) The Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(Appeals) have to appreciate the fact that the agricultural products in this country are traded in unorganized sector. The workforce in the agricultural sector is unorganized. When the agricultural products are traded in unorganized sector in the country, expecting the assessee […]
An individual coparcener who was shown as owner in the registered sale deed could not be assessed for capital gain arising in respect of the property belonging to Hindu Undivided Family.
Conclusion: Claim of assessee for long term capital gains arising on transfer of shares u/s.10(38) was real or sham, required a revisit by AO by considering all the evidences produced by assessee and also, AO should allow the opportunity of cross-examination to check the nature of transaction.
