When the entire investment for the purchase of new house has gone through the assessee’s account then benefit u/s 54 of Income Tax Act cannot be denied on the ground the new house was purchased in the name of wife. Hence, the claim of the assessee u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act is allowed.
The Jaipur bench of ITAT comprising Vijay Pal Rao (judicial member) and Vikram Singh Yadav (accountant member) recently held that the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) restricting amenities to doctors is
Vinita Ranka Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) There is no dispute that during the course of assessment proceedings the AO noted that the bank transactions including the deposit in the bank and outward transaction are more than Rs. 4 Crores. The assessee then filed revised computation of income and admitted the turnover of more than Rs. […]
When assessee failed to file any reliable evidence or documents, which could establish that she was a sub-broker and cash deposited in her bank account belong to her clients, then action of treating the entire cash deposits as per section 69 as unexplained investment of the assessee was held to be fully justified.
A bench comprising Vijay Pal Rao (JM) and Vikram Singh Yadav (AM) of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently declared that Interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act can be levied on ground of non-payment of advance tax in respect of Alternative Minimum Tax.
Merely for the reason that new residential house property has been purchased by assessee in wife name, same cannot be basis for denial of deduction claimed u/s 54F.
No scrutiny proceedings can be initiated if notice under section 143(2) is not received by assessee within the prescribed period.
Where the CIT(A) was already ceased of the matter wherein the matter has been contested before him by the AO, the ld. Pr. CIT does not have the jurisdiction to exercise his powers u/s 263 of the Act on the same matter as per the explicit provisions contained in clause (c) to explanation 1 to section 263 of the Act.
When assessee himself had adopted value of land as per Stamp Duty Authority for computation of long-term capital gain, then he could not claim adoption of the value of land as estimated by DVO, as he filed return of income and paid taxes, also there was no scope of reduction.
Development fee payment was not optional or voluntary on the part of the students but it was compulsory charge in the nature of fee for studying and continuing study in the institutions of the assessee, therefore, development fee received by assessee could not be classified as capital in nature for specific purpose or part of corpus fund of assessee trust. It was part of the current receipt and partook the character of other fee charged by assessee on account of tuition fee, term fee, etc.
