Assessee is entitled to include interest in the capital cost while computing capital gains U/s 48 of the Act. Judicial discipline requires us to follow the order of a co‑ordinate bench.
Sudha Eashwar Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) The assesse is claiming exemption by way of long term capital gains claimed by it to be earned on sale and purchase of Turbotech Engineering Ltd. by invoking provisions of Section 10(38) of the 1961 Act and onus is on the assessee to prove that these gains are genuine […]
Shri N. Ramaswamy Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) A bare reading of Section 2(47)(vi) of the Act shows that the agreement or arrangement which has the effect of transferring or enabling the enjoyment of immovable property, has to be considered as transfer in relation to capital asset. In this case, there was a perpetual lease agreement […]
Rajshree Sugars and Chemicals Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) As we have already held that the receipt on the sale of carbon credits is liable to be treated as capital receipts, admittedly, the expenditure incurred by the assessee in respect of the sale of the carbon credits cannot be treated as Revenue expenditure at all. […]
Cynthia Ramona Chellappa Vs. ITO (ITAT Chennai) The issue under consideration is whether the amount received through the Will of God-Mother is eligible for exemption u/s 56(2)(vii)? ITAT states that a perusal of the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) shows that any amount received by an individual without consideration and the aggregate value exceeds 50,000, the […]
The issue under consideration is whether TDS u/s 194J will be applicable on payments made by TPA to hospitals on behalf of insurance companies for settling medical or insurance claims?
The issue under consideration is whether the AO is correct in adopting land value of adjacent area, just because the colony is adjacent to a road, which has a higher guideline value is justified in law and in ignoring the specific guideline value fixed by the Government in respect of specific colony or flat?
It cannot be said that the shares of the profit in AOP of members is determinate or known. Thus on cumulative consideration of all clause the three agreement entered into it is crystal clear that shares members of AOP are indeterminate and unknown, therefore the provisions of sub section (1) to Section 167B of the Act are squarely applicable and we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities.
M. Shanthi Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) It is noticed that as the assessee has not produced the evidences before the Assessing Officer, and has given reasonable and justifiable cause for the same, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The liberty is […]
JCIT (OSD) Vs Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the relevant material available on record. The Market Linked Focus Product Scheme is a scheme promoted by the Director General of Foreign Trade wherein incentive @ 2% on the FOB value of […]
