Provision of section 45(3) are exhaustive and does not confer any power on the AO to adopt consideration different from what is recorded in the books of account of the firm. Thus, AO was not correct in adopting the market value of land as revalued subsequently by the firm in the books of account.
ACIT Vs Rohini Hotel (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) A perusal of the Page Nos. 6-13 of the Paper Book filed by the assessee shows that the assessee has filed certain reconciliation statements in respect of the shortfall of investments u/s. 68 added by the AO. The same are scanned and made a part of […]
Mrs. A. Vijayakumari Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) The provisions of section 54 of the Act are beneficial and are to be considered liberally for reasonable bonafide cause but investment in residential property is mandatory which is not in dispute in this case. The Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the case law relied on […]
ITAT held that CIT(A) rightly directed Assessing Officer to allow the assessee’s claim of depreciation @ 25% treating the toll way rights as an intangible asset under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In the given case the issue under consideration is that whether capital gains, which were exempt under section 54EC could be reckoned for purpose of computing book profit under section 115JA
Whether the AO is correct in making addition in the return by considering the income as not from agriculture on the failure of Assessee to prove agriculture activity?
Assessee was diagnosed with Cancer in December, 2017 and the ld. CIT(A) passed the order on 20.03.2018, which is subsequent to the diagnosis of the illness, needless to mention that treatment of cancer is very painful and it is not possible to focus on other issues when he was under the treatment and therefore in our opinion, there is a reasonable cause for not fling the appeal within the due period and therefore we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay and accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
Recently in the DCIT vs. Compass Group (India) Support Services P. Ltd. ITAT Chennai decided on 12.06.2019, one of the ground taken by Revenue in the appeal was that the Learned CIT(A) has erred in providing relief to the assessee by holding that the appellant was entitled to depreciation on non compete fee as an intangible asset under Section 32( l)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred in short as the Act).
B. Kannabiran Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) Tahsildar, being the head of the revenue unit of the Taluk, issued certificate saying that the land in question is beyond 9 KMs radius from Tambaram municipality. This certificate issued by the Tahsildar was rejected by the CIT(Appeals) on the basis of bus route. The details with regard to […]
Smt. Archana Kanwar Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2012-13, the assessee sold a vacant plot at Gurgaon, Haryana for a consideration of ₹.75,00,000/- after reducing the index […]
