An ‘individual’ and an ‘HUF’ are different persons under the Income Tax Act, and notice to one cannot be deemed as notice to the other.
Recently, in DCIT vs. Ford India Limited & vice-versa[I.T.A. Nos. 673 and 840 /Chny/2015 and I.T.A. Nos. 748 and 749 /Chny/2015, A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13, decided on 31.01.2017], one of the question raised before ITAT, Chennai was whether CIT(A) erred in deleting the tax
Shri K. Balasubramanian, the learned representative for the assessee submitted that the assessee HUF, sold 122.840 carat of diamonds on 2-1-2012 for a total consideration of Rs. 57,12,060. The long-term capital gain computed at Rs. 42,65,619. According to the learned representative, there was no dispute about sale of diamonds and the computation of long-term capital gain at Rs. 42,65,619.
This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 13, Chennai dated 15.09.2016 and pertains to the assessment year 2012-13.
Dr. S. Muthian Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) Sec.143(3) of the Act contemplates two methods of assessment being made vis-a -vis a return filed by an assessee. Wherever, the AO wants to scrutinise the return of income, he has to issue notice u/s.143(2) of the Act so as to complete the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act. […]
Assessee will be entitled for benefit of deduction U/s. 54F of Act if he demolished new asset being residential house purchased by him within period of three years from the date of purchase in violation to Section 54F(3) of Act.
First requirement to claim of additional depreciation is that there should a new machinery or plant. A machinery is new till it is first put to use. Once it is used, it is no longer a new machinery. Admittedly, the machinery, on which additional depreciation has been claimed, was already used in various preceding previous […]
AO is also equally responsible to find out whether the credit entry found on 01.07.2010 is genuine or not. The AO cannot take advantage of the ignorance or handicap of the assessee and say that there was undisclosed receipt by the assessee.
Assessee submitted that project receipt from Tanakpur Power Project of NHPC work is exempt from tax in India for the reason that assessee does not have continuous presence or ‘business connection’ or a permanent establishment in India.
Assessee had not invested in Capital Gain Account Scheme before the due date under section 139(1) but complied with the conditions under section 54F(1). The provisions of section 54F are beneficial provisions and are to be considered liberally on the aspect of limitation period. However the investment in residential property is a must which the assessee had complied with evidence.
