Venkatesharaiyer Subramanian Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) There could be no quarrel on the fact that post-amendment to Sec. 54F, as applicable from AY 2015-16, deduction u/s 54F could not be claimed on purchase / construction of more than one residential house. However, the factual matrix would reveal that the assessee has made investment in one […]
DCIT Vs Essel Finance VKC Forex Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) assessee has advanced sum of Rs.7.5 Crores to another entity for taking a property on lease. The same has been treated by Ld. AO as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act on the ground that one of the directors of the assessee company held substantial […]
Held that reopening of assessment on the basis of the approval given in mechanical manner without application of mind is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
Held that it can be make out that the assessee has made an afterthought to file the appeal accordingly condonation of 1070 days cannot be granted on the basis of vague reasons
Held that co-operative banks are liable to deduct TDS on payment of interest on time deposits only from 01.06.2015 and not before that.
AO has made addition u/s.56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, towards difference between guideline value and consideration paid for purchase of property as unexplained investment.
Held that addition, only on the basis of information received from investigation wing ignoring all the evidences filed by the assessee, is unsustainable in law
Held that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thus, the CIT has rightly exercised his jurisdictional powers
Investment made by the assessee in another company is on capital account and further, when loss incurred on account of diminishing in value of said investment is capital in nature and thus, same cannot be claimed as deduction u/s.37(1) of the Act.
If guideline value of the property as on date of agreement of sale is considered, then there is no difference between consideration paid by the assessee for purpose of purchase of property and value assessed by stamp duty valuation authority and thus, provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, cannot be invoked.
