ITAT Chennai held that AO is free to examine the method through which the share price is determined. However, AO doesnot have power to change the method from discounted cash flow (DCF) as followed by assessee to Net Asset Value (NAV).
ITAT upheld additions towards cash seized during search proceedings as unexplained money, under Section 69A when assessee could not establish source for amount found.
ITAT held that profit from sale of property purchased to exploit commercially and sold as a stock in trade cannot be assessed to tax under the head capital gain and shall be assessed under the head, profit and gains of business or profession;
ITAT Chennai held that exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act duly available towards purchase of undivided share of land.
ITAT Chennai held that profit on transfer of flats to partners is computable in the hands of firm, however, benefit of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act duly available even on transfer of flats to the partners by way of MOU.
ITAT Chennai held that as cash deposited by assessee received from petty shop owners on account of sale of its product during demonetization period was not examined by AO during assessment. Accordingly, PCIT rightly passed revision order u/s 263 directing AO to carry out necessary verification.
ITAT Chennai held that as per assigning reasons for delay in filing audit report under section 44AB is venial technical breach and accordingly penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act not leviable.
Mohamed Mohideen Ayesha Nasreen Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) ITAT held that it could be seen that assessee is living with her husband and three children (Two daughters and one son) in USA. She has got married in the year 2003. In this letter, the assessee has submitted that approx. 1201 grams of jewellery belong to […]
ITAT Chennai held that deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act restricted to only for one floor (3rd floor) as assessee failed to establish that two floors (3rd and 4th floor) is one residential house.
Undisputedly investment been made out of part of sale consideration. Therefore, simply because sale deed been executed subsequently, section 54F deduction cannot be denied
