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.
Schwing Stetter (India) Private Limited case: Where except for the debit entries, assessee did not produce any evidence to show that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business expenditure, held as unallowable for deduction while computing total income
Hence it would be an appropriate analogy that the entire amount which is liable to be treated as deemed dividend has to be apportioned between both the shareholders in whose cases the conditions stipulated for attracting the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act are satisfied. Therefore as pleaded by the Ld.AR, it would be judicious to make addition in the hands of Shri V. Ramesh an amount of Rs.26,84,902/- and Shri S. Ramu – Rs.26,84,901/-. It is ordered accordingly.
Assessee come out with the plea that they were not provided with opportunity of cross-examining the witness, the investigation report was not furnished and proper opportunity was not provided of being heard. However we find that all these arguments raised by the assessee before us was never alleged before the AO when the matter was before them.
Smt. Waheeda Asif Abbas Vs The ITO (ITAT Chennai) The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee under Section 54F of the Act on the ground that the assessee’s husband was not having any share in the property sold by the assessee. Since the investment was made in the name of the assessee and […]
Smt. Waheeda Asif Abbas Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee under Section 54F of the Act on the ground that the assessee’s husband was not having any share in the property sold by the assessee. Since the investment was made in the name of the assessee and her […]
Dr. Muthian Sivathanu, Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) Conclusion: Gains arising from sale of the shares allotted in the ESOP (Employees Stock Option Plan) scheme when the assessee was non-resident, not to be assessed as perquisites instead of assessed as capital gain as the stock viz., the asset was already vested on the assessee during the […]
