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 […]
Shri. P.K. Mohammed Vs. ACIT (ITAT Chennai) As regards to the allowances of discount, commission and development expenditure, no evidence were filed before us establishing the genuineness of the expenditure. Mere entries in the books of accounts does not establish the genuineness of the expenditure. The contention that profit arising on account of sale of […]
Receipt of capitation fee by educational institution and non-recording thereof by assessee, educational trust, in regular books of account was in total violation of section 13(1)(c) and, therefore, cancellation of registration under section 12AA was justified.
Assessee has not tendered cogent evidence to explain as to how the shares in an unknown company had jumped to an higher amount in no time when the fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there was no economic or financial basis to justify the price rise. Also, assessee failed to provide details of persons who purchased the shares. Clearly, assessee had indulged in a dubious share transaction, meant to account for undisclsoed income in the garb of long-term capital gain, therefore, such gain had to be assessed as undisclosed credit under section 68.
Shri Bansilal Bagri Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) This is the transaction arranged in such a way that the accommodation entries were made at several entities level and ultimately the money came back to the assessee. Herbicure Healthcare Bio-Herbal Research Foundation of Kolkata involved in the fraudulent and sham transactions, providing accommodation entries and claiming a […]
Penalty u/s 271D could not be imposed on assessee for advances against sale of flats and cash receipts received from the promoters through their respective current accounts as nothing had been brought on record by Revenue to show that the receipts were superfluous in nature and not for the business of assessee.
Mere execution of power of attorney could not be considered to be transfer of property. For transfer of property, assessee had to enter into an agreement for sale either by himself or through power of attorney agent and also hand over the physical possession of the property as contemplated under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act.
Merely because the assessee was not able to generate desired agricultural income from the said land and thus, it sold the said land within one year of its purchase, would not change the character of agricultural land to a non-agricultural land. Consequently, the assessee would be entitled to claim the benefit of exemption under section 10(1).
Partnership firm can own assets only in the name of the partners. In the case of the assessee firm, the car is owned in the name of the partner of the firm. If the car is purchased from the resource of the firm or the purchase consideration is credited to the partner’s current account or capital account then it shall be construed that the firm is the owner of the car.
Assessee-producer having film production unit entitled for income tax deduction under section 80IB as assessee was running a production house and each new project for a new film, could not be considered as split up or reconstruction of the business already in existence.
